Google
This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project
to make the world's books discoverable online.
It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.
Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the
publisher to a library and finally to you.
Usage guidelines
Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.
We also ask that you:
+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.
+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.
+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.
+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe.
About Google Book Search
Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web
at |http: //books .google .com/I
•s.\:::V::^
■^^:^*^^
■X.'
/c
^. s. m:^.
j: ■
t
\
♦/x £^tA^»-^<^ ,
^hpu^ ^-X^ ^zfc«^ ^^'^^^^^^^^^c^^ i/iy
^>^
f^"'"'^ UuXC^
*>. V
'1
^Ofe+<ov\mo>ij Ivah Mo
THE HISTORY
OF THE
COUNCIL OF FLORENCP:
TRAlfSLATED FROM THE RUSSIAN BY
BASIL POPOFF,
t
STUDENT OF THE S. PETERSBURG ECCLESIASTICAL ACADEMY.
EDITED BY
THE REV. J. M. NEALE, D.D.,
WARDEN OF SACKVILLE COLLEGE.
LONDON :
JOSEPH MASTERS, ALDERSGATE STREET,
AND NEW BOND STREET.
UDOCOIXI.
ITHENE'/v '■^vKI
jPUBLlCLiBiv.RY
54978
ASTOR, LENOX AND
TILDEN FOUNDATIONS.
1897.
LONDON:
PRINTED BY JOSEPH MASTEBS AND CO.,
ALDEBI^ATE STBEET.
PREFACE.
There is, I believe, no Ecclesiastical history in the
English language, — of a period common to the East
and West, — which takes the Oriental view of the matter
in question.
If it were only on this account, the present volume,
relating the last attempt at an union between the two
great Churches, would possess a certain value.
But, it is further to be observed, that several Russian
manuscripts and printed works throw a Ught on the
Council of Florence which is not afforded by any of its
Western historians.
It was with great pleasure, therefore, that I acceded
to the request of my friend, the Rev. Eugene Popoff,
Chaplain to the Russian Embassy in London, to edit
the following translation, the work of his son. Although
the translator's manuscript needed very little correction,
there was here and there a phrase which presented a
foreign idiom ; and some of the proper names were given
after the Russ and not after the English fashion of
orthography. Beyond this, I have not felt at liberty to
make any alteration.
I would only observe that, with respect to what after
all was the chief point debated at Florence, the Filioque
IV PREFACE.
controversy, so far as regards the adoption of the ne
clause into the Creed, a most undoubted Anglican au-
thority speaks thus : " Though the addition of words
to the formal Creed, without the consent and against
the protestation of the Oriental Church be not justi-
fiable ;" and again : " Thus did the Oriental Church
accuse the Occidental for adding Filioque to the Creed,
contrary to the General Council, which had prohibited
all additions, and that without the least pretence of an-
other Council : and so the schism between the Latin
and the Greek Church began and was continued, never
to be ended until those words, xaS Ik tw Tlou, or Filioque,
are taken out of the Creed.^'^
With respect to another Article debated at Florence,
the Papal supremacy, the Anglican reader will perceive
how entirely the Oriental arguments arp those which
we employ at the present day ; while with regard to
Azymes, it is rather by accident than from principle
that we agree to the Eastern view.
The present volume was originally the work of a
student in the Spiritual Academy at Moscow, but has
received correction from, and I believe I may say the
imprimatur of, the Theological Professor in the same
Academy. If it assists in making the Eastern Church
and the great learning of its scholars better known to
ourselves, I shall be most thankful for the very small
share I have taken in the publication of the present
volume.
S. Matthias, Stoke Newington,
Saturday of the Second Week in Advent j
Dec, 14, 1861.
1 Bishop Pearson, Vol. I. p. 492 ; VoL II. p. 407.
CONTENTS.
INTEODUCTION.
PAGJh:
SOITBCXS POB THB HiSTOBT 07 THB COUNCIL 07 FlOBENOE . 1
CHAPTER I.
View op the state of the Eabtebv Empibe and the Chttbgh
OP Some pbeceding the FLOBENTunB Cottncil . . 8
CHAPTER n.
Negotiations between the Empebobs Mantjeii and John
PALJBOIiOai, THE SeE OP ROME, AND THE COTTNOIL OP
Basle, BEGABDiNe thb union op the Chubches . 14
CHAPTER m.
Depabtube op the Gbeees POB the Council and theib
ABBIYAL IN EeBBABA 31
CHAPTER IV.
Opening op the Council in Eebbaba. Pbiyate disputes
ON Pubgatoby 40
CHAPTER V.
The solemn Sessions op the Council. Disputes on the
Latin addition to the Cbeed 60
VI CONTENTS.
CHAPTER VI.
L TO FlOBENOE.
Pbooession of the Holy G-host fbom the Son . . 85
PAGE
Kemoval op the Cottnchi to Floeenoe. Disputes on the
CHAPTER VII.
SeCBET means POB BEOONCILINa THE GbEEES TO THE LaTIN
DOOTBINE ON THE " FILIOQTTE" ClAUSE .... 118
CHAPTER Vm.
Disputes on otheb Latin Dootbines. Death op the Patbi-
ABOH. PbOOLAHATION OP THE TJNION OP THE ChUBOHES . 142
CHAPTER IX.
Retubn op the G^beees hohe. Rejection op the Elobbn-
TiNE Union by the Obthodox Eastebn Chubch . 164
CHAPTER X.
A PEW W0BD8 ABOUT THE COUNCIL 184
HISTORY
OF THE
COUNCIL OF FLOKENCE.
INTRODUCTION.
SOITECBS POa THE HiSTOEY OE THE COTWOIL OP FlOEENCE.
It was at an early period that the spirit of supremacy
began to show itself in the Pontiffs of Rome. As soon
as their unceasing and strenuous efforts to spread their
spiritual monarchy over the whole of the West were
crowned with success^ they, not content with this,
sought also the submission to their pontifical throne of
their own equals — ^the Eastern Patriarchs, and thus oc-
casioned that great division of the West and East,
which, commencing under Photius, ended in the final
schism of the Church of Rome from the only Orthodox
Church of the East. It was not love of power alone
that caused this division ; but also an obstinacy in ad-
hering to many material regressions from the ancient
doctrine and discipline of the Church (Ecumenical.
Time, instead of abating this love of power and eradi-
cating errors, only conduced to their development and
B
Z HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
strength. Thus it was, that the division of the Churches
became more and more permanent, while the Eastern
Christians, true to their ancient Orthodoxy, were
strengthened in their aversion to the Latin Church.
The calamitous state of the Eastern Empire, bereft of
its strength, at one and the same time open to the ra-
vages of barbarous and rude nations from the north
and east, while it suffered no less from the encroach-
ments of its own brethren of the West, more than once
engendered a wish in its rulers to restore the former
spirit of love and peace between the Churches, hoping
by these means to find effectual aid in the head of
Western Christianity against enemies threatening the
Empire with ruin and desolation. The Popes were no-
thing loth to receive such demonstrations from the East,
always keeping their own object in view, that of attain-
ing supremacy and dominion over the four Eastern
Patriarchates. Nevertheless, it was very evident, that
as long as the Popes retained such an object in view,
and refused to return to the pure ancient doctrine and
practice of the Church, no such efforts of reconciliation
would prove successful.
The fruit of these efforts during the existence of the
Eastern Empire, was a Council, which, convened at
Ferrara, was afterwards removed to Florence, and there
came to a close. Twenty years of preparation for this
Council, the presence of the Eastern Emperor, the
Patriarch of Constantinople with other Patriarchal
Vicars ('E^/Tpowoi) and Bishops, on one side, and that of
the Pope, with his numerous suite of Cardinals and
Bishops on the other; then, again, the long duration of
the conferences on the principal causes of the division ;
•r • •
* • •
• • ••
> • • • •
• • • •
ITS GREAT IMPORTANCE. 6
lastly, the very minuteness with which the points in
dispute were brought under the notice of the Synod —
aU this together enhances the special value of a history
of the Council. Whereas, again, its close, so contrary
to the hopes and expectations nourished at its opening
by those who came from the far east, contrary to the
evident superiority of the last named in truth and jus-
tice, gives rise to a very laudable curiosity as to how
affairs were really carried on in this assembly. A son
of the Orthodox Graeco-Russian Church has besides
this a more special inducement to acquaint himself with
the history of this Council, not only because it included
among its members a Russian Metropolitan, who took
no little interest in the acts, though himself no great
defender of the ancient Orthodoxy of his Church; but
also because the decrees of Florence served as a foun-
dation for the so-called '' Unia" organised in the south-
eastern provinces of our country, thanks to the Jesuits
of the sixteenth century. An impartial history will
show how unjustly the canons of the Council of Florence
were, and even are, counted as the production of Greeks,
ever the true sons of their Orthodox Church.
The contemporary description of this Council by
Syropulus, known by the name of a '' Truthful History
of an unjust union,^' is the first and principal source for
the History of this Council.^ Sylvester Syropulus, a
' This title is given to Syropulus' work by the editor. The beginning
of the History is lost, and thus its real title is unknown. When divid-
ing his History, Syropulus calls his work *AirofAyrifioyf^fiara, Edit.
Hagffi Comit. 1660, in folio. The Greek text has a Latin, though not a
very correct version by Creighton.
b2
4 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
Greek by birth, was the son of a Chureh-teacher,^ by
whom he was educated, and soon formed an intimate
acquaintance with many pious and learned men of his
time. Ordained deacon of the Constantinopolitan
Church, with the title of Ecclesiarch and Dikeophylax,
he accompanied the Patriarch to the Council of Flo-
rence, was present at it in the capacity of a member,
and thus saw and heard all things transacted there,
even taking part in many of the minor meetings of the
Bishops; lastly, he was more than once sent by the
other members of the Council to the Pope. His stead-
fastness in the Orthodox doctrine and aversion from the
imion drew on him the Emperor^s anger, and was the
cause of much indignation on the part of the Latins
and the Greek apostates from Orthodoxy. At the ur-
gent demands of the Emperor^s officers, he signed the
CounciPs decrees ; but shortly afterwards sincerely re-
pented of what he had done ; and, withdrawing himself
from the union and his Church office, wrote his history
of the Synod.2
The history of Syropulus closes with the events of
the years 1444 and 1445 ; we can, with great likelihood,
suppose that it was written just about this time ; and,
consequently, during the lifetime of the Emperor, John
Palseologus, and many other members of the Council.
This circumstance attests the truth of his history. He
himself affirms in many places, that there is nothing
but truth in his history,^ that he even wished to omit
1 Syrop. ix. 14. By the name of Church Teachers the Greeks under-
stood those members of the Clergy whose principal occupation was
preaching in the Church.
^ This is seen from his own words. ^ Syr. xi. 4.
GOOD PAITH OF SYROFULUS. 5
many things^ but could not do so^ as the witnesses of
these events were still alive.i Without going into the
details of the public disputes, written down during the
very sittings of the Council, he relates the private con-
ferences of the Greek Bishops, generally using the^ir
own expressions.^ When describing the preliminary in-
tercourse of the Emperor and Patriarch with the Popes,
he makes use of the ''ypa/Ajxara^' entered into the
Church codex ;3 he also finds place in his history for
some of the genuine acts of the Council, e.g., the
opinions of the Patriarch and the Emperor on the
Procession of the Holy Ghost; also for the objec-
tions of the Latins against the exposition of the same
doctrine made by the Greek Bishops.* With rare ho-
nesty he refuses witnessing to subjects more or less
unknown to him, but narrates what he himself had
heard.^ Speaking of the principal authors of the union,
he is far from concealing their good qualities, remark-
ing that it is unjust to pass them over in silence ;^ nei-
ther is he silent upon many injudicious acts of the
defenders of Orthodoxy ;7 he then relates, with great
frankness and sincerity, how he was obliged to sign his
name to the Council decree, and tries to exculpate him-
self, by saying, that it was not done for money.^ Lastly,
we must say that the memoirs of Syropulus correspond
in the principal points with other Greek and Latin nar-
ratives of the Council. All these circumstances attest
1 Syr. iii. 1. 2 Syr. v. 5. s Syr. ii. 8.
* Syr. ix. 9, 10. Compare Synod. Flor. pp. 610, 611. See also Syr.
Yiii. 14, 17, 19.
* Syr. yiii, 12, and in many other parts of his work.
* Syr. vi. 23, 24. 7 Syr. ix. 6. 8 Syr. x. 8.
6 HISTORY OP THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
the sincerity of the writer and the truth of his his-
tory.
We have ah^ady mentioned, that Syropulus does not
give place in his history to any of the public disputes at
the Council ; but to make up for this he endeavours to
disclose the object held in view by the Emperor, the
Pope and their party, and the motives from which they
acted at the Council. His description of the private,
secret intercourse between the Latins and Oreeks afbei^
the public sittings of the Council, brings to light many
of their dark doings, which, were it not for Syroj^Ius,
would have remained until now unknown to us. Gene-
raUy speaking, were it not for his memoirs, the descrip-
tion of this Council by other authors would hardly have
proved satisfactory.
Out of all the annals of this Council, published by
the Church of Rome, the best is very rightly reckoned
to be, — the History of the Council of Florence, written
in Greek by one of its members, Dorotheus, Metropo-
litan of Mitylene.^ It principally consists in an expo-
sition of the Council disputes, very likely composed
with the help of notes, made at the very Council, and to
which the historian now and then refers. On finishing
the Acts of the Council, the author commences his
own diary of the chief occupations of the Greek Bishops
until the close of the Synod. The diary is short, be-
cause the writer, who was one of the most active parti-
1 This history is published under the title of S. Gener. Florentina
Sjnodus, in 4to., two books. The author's name is not mentioned.
jUlatius refers it to Theodoras Xanthopulus. But Bertram, in his
Abhandlung vom Dorotheo yon Mitylena einem ungenanten Gteschioht-
schreiber, Halle, 1759, in 4to., has prored its author to be Dorotheus
of Mit^lene.
THE '^ history" of bobotheus. 7
zans of the Church union^ only finds place for such
subjects as seemed most important for his object in
view^ and looks upon them besides in his own light.
In the course of our history of the Florentine Council,
we can, under the guidance of Syropulus, also avail
ourselves of the memoirs of Dorotheus, endeavouring
as far as possible to clear the truth from falsehood, and
to amplify one narrative by the other.
The Russian annals and memoirs, on the voyage of
the Metropolitan Isidore to the Council, may also be of
use in showing several circumstances, touching the
Russian Metropolitan, of which there is no mention
made in Syropulus, or in the Latin descriptions of the
Council.^
A complete history of the Council of Florence must
not only show the progress of the Council and its re-
sults ; but also give an introductory sketch of the con-
temporary state of the Eastern Empire and the Church
of Rome. By doing this it will serve to explain the
reason of the strenuous efforts made by the Emperor
and Pope to convene a Council and accomplish the union
of Churches.
^ "GPhe narratiye about the Eighth Council" is published in the
Sophian Yremennik (Times)— Stroeff*s edition, P. ii., p. 18: also in
Nicon's Chronicle, P. v. See abo " Voyage of Isidore to the Council
of Florence," printed in YoL vi. of the Ancient Russian Library, 2nd
Edit. pp. 27 — ^70. " Voyage of Simeon of Suzdal to Italy," in Sacha-
roff^B edition of the " Foreign Travels of Bussians." St. Petersburg,
1837. P. it, pp. 87—112.
8 HISTORY OP THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
CHAPTER I.
YiEW OP THE STATE OP THE EaSTEBN EmFIBE AITD THE ChXTECH OP
BOHE PEEOEDINa THE FlOBENTDTB OoUKOIL.
Ktiable was the state of the Empire of Constan-
tinople, when Manuel II. (1891) began those nego-
tiations with the Pope, which resulted in the Council
of Florence. At that time everything was in the hands
of the Turks. Manuel himself, during the very lifetime
of his father, was forced by Bajazet II. to join him in
his expeditions. ManuePs father, by the Sultan's order,
was compelled to raze to the ground the city forti-
fications then only in course of erection. Then came
the demands from Bajazet, that a mosque should be
erected, and a cadi appointed in the town for the
Turks, demands coupled with threats of shutting up
the inhabitants within the city walls, in case of a re-
fusal. True to his threat, Bajazet commenced ravaging
towns and villages in the suburbs of Constantinople,
forcing the poor inhabitants to migrate into other
places ; at the same time his armies devastated the Pe-
loponnesus and demolished towns on the coast of the
Euxine. The armies of Islam stationed close to the
town cut off the import of com; hunger drove the
inhabitants to despair. Such was the beginning of
ManueFs reign ! Six years afterwards, Manuel at the
demand of Bajazet was obliged to divide his nearly
powerless authority between himself and his nephew
Andronicus, who proclaimed himself the Sultan's tri-
butary — and personally to seek the aid of the monarchs
WRETCHED STATE OF THE EASTERN EMPIRE. 9
of Western Europe. During his absence Constanti-
nople nearly fell a prey to the ambitious views of Ba-
jazet. Luckily for the town the Sultan met with a
dreadful rival in the person of Timour. His victories
over the Sultan sustained for a time the Empire^s ex-
istence and made Manuel once more master of his own
throne. Mahomet I.^ son and successor of Bajazet^
kept the peace with the Greek Emperor.
But what remained now to the Emperor from out of
his at one time vast possessions? In Asia he was no
longer master of a single province, of a solitary town.
True, Mahomet did restore the ruins on the coast of the
Black Sea, the Propontis and in Thessaly, but then
these ruins alone, with Constantinople^ were all that re-
mained to him of the once great Empire. Even of this
he was master only at the Sultanas grace. Such a state
of affairs, could not continue long. In. the reign of
ManueFs successor, John VI. Palaeologus, the limits of
the Empire were still less ; the Emperor paid the Sultan
Murad II. 100,000 aspres. In reality it was the latter
who was unlimited master of the Empire, having the
power even of levying troops from among the Greeks,
The Turks pillaged towns, devastated whole provinces,
and expelled the inhabitants. The Emperor could only
witness the calamities of his subjects, but help them he
could not. His army for the most part consisted of
mercenaries, his fleet was insignificant, the finances of
the Empire were in the greatest disorder, so that at last
John was brought to the necessitjt of selling Thessalo-
nica to the Venetians, in order to pay the expenses of
his court.
The Empire was evidently on the brink of ruin, and
b3
10 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
well aware of this were the poor owners of Constanti*
nople. They knew besides^ that as long as the town
remained in Greek hands^ they might still find some
help on the part of the Western Monarchs^ and hope
for some snccess over the Turks. But it was just as
evident to them, that as long as the division of the
Churches continued, the Western Christians would
sooner stand by, and allow the Turks to annihilate all
the East, than offer a helping hand in its defence. This
then was the reason why Mannel, in hopes of saving his
Empire, determined on entering into negotiations with
the Pope, which were carried on by John with the view
of attaining an nnion of Chnrches by means of an
(Ecumenical Council. They were in hopes, that such
a Council could, on the authority of Holy Scripture and
Holy Tradition, solve all the points of dissension be-
tween the Churches ; the East and West would make
peace with each other on the subject of faith, and that
then all Christian nations, the cause of their religious
enmity being done away with, would give their hands and
hearts to the defence of the faithful agamst the infidels.
. It was no secret, that the hope of receiving help for
the Empire by means of a Council, was the real motive
both the Emperors had in proposing this union to the
Pope. Even the Turks guessed the designs of the Em-
perors and dreaded the alliance.^ The Emperor, John
Palseologus, himself more than once told Us spiritual
and civil nobles, at Constantinople, then at Ferrara, and
Florence, that this was the very object of the assembling
of the Council.
1 See the last advice given by Manuel to his son, in the Hist. iii. 13.
Sdit. Bonn) p. ITS.
STATE OF THE LATIN CHrRCH. 11
We will now turn our attention to the contemporary
state of ecclesiastical affairs in the West. It will then
be plain^ why the Pope evinced so sincere a readiness to
take on himself the assembling of the Council^ for the
union of Churches.
Since the removal of the Papal seat to Avignon (1808),
the Western Church was disturbed by many violent
commotions, which led to the so-called '' great schism.''
(1378—1428.) During half a century the Church of
the West was divided between two Popes, of whom one
remained in Italy, and the other resided in France. The
Popes and anti-Popes by levelling anathemas at each othei^
caused great disturbances among the clergy and laity :
the people and their rulers were quite at a loss, whom
to receive as the lawful rulers of the Church; the party
of one Pope persecuted the party of the other, and both
used the most unlawfiil means for augmenting their in-
comes. It was during these universal commotions, that
the monarchs and the clergy of the West became per-
suaded in the necessity of a reform in this Church, be-
ginning with her head and ending in her members, fully
conscious at the same time, that this reform must be
made by means of an (Ecumenical Council, and not by
the Popes themselves. Thus, the Western Church by
a series of calamities returned to the old persuasion,
however opposed it might have been to that of the Popes,
that the only visible, universal authority, must be, with-
out exception, that of the (Ecumenical Councils. So
that at the beginning of the fifteenth century Councils
were convened in the West, which claiming to themselves
the title of (Ecumenical also claimed the right of judg-
ing the Popes, and with unequal success set about re-
12 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
»
forming the many abuses caused in the Church by Papal
avarice and ambition.
The refusal (contrary to their own promise, and the
requests of the Emperors and Bishops) of Gregory XII.
chosen Pope by the Italian Cardinals, and of Pope
Benedict XII. then at Avignon, to surrender their
claims to the Papal chair, was followed by the Council of
Pisa, which being convened against them, transferred
the Papal tiara to Alexander V., branding them with the
name of schismatics, heretics, and perjurers. But thi&
election, far from quieting the disturbances in the
Church, only served to augment her calamities by the
addition of a new Pope. On the death of Alexander,
John XXIII. continued anathematizing his rivals — Gre-
gory and Benedict. At last the Council of Constance
wishing (1414) to put an end to all disturbances, so-
lemnly proclaimed that 'Hhis (Ecumenical Council has re-
ceived immediate authority from our Lord Jesus Christ;
and every member of the Church, not excepting the
Pope, must obey the Council in all matters pertaining to
faith, the putting down of schism and ecclesiastical re-
form. If, contrary to this canon, the Pope or any one
else refuses to receive this, or any other (Ecumenical
Council, he shall be sentenced to penance, and when ne-
cessary be even visited with legal punishment.^^ This
decree was enforced on John XXIII. ; he was sentenced
to be deprived of the Papal chair. He was succeeded
by Otho Colonna, who took the name of Martin V. (Nov.
11, 1417) . The Council next betook itself to the reform
of the Church, though in reality it limited itself to a
very few changes, as the Pope would not allow any
serious alterations to be made, managing to postpone
CHECK TO THE PAPAL AUTHORITY. 13
the settiing of the general demands from one Council to
another. Thus in the lifetime of the same Pope Martin^
the Council of Constance was successively followed by
that of Pavia, (1428), Sienna, (1424), with no better
success, and lastly, by that of Basle (1431), which was
so much dreaded by Martinis successor, Eugenius IV.
It was at this very period of time, when the Papal
authority had received so severe a check from the schism,
when the former conviction of the infallibility and ab-
solute power of the Pope had lost its force and made way
for the opinion, that the authority of (Ecumenical Coun-
cils was greater than that of the Pope ; then it was, that
the Popes, fearful of entirely losing their power over the
Church, and unable to contend with the prevalent spirit
of reform, joyftdly acceded to the Emperor^s proposal of
the union of Churches, the more readily as this union
seemed very likely to be of service in sustaining their
now tottering power. They might well expect to be-
come the Supreme rulers of the whole Christian world,
and then to be able to destroy with ease all the reform-
ers of the West, as soon as the union of Churches should
be attained at an QBcumenical Council.
Thus the Council, at which it was purposed to bring
about the union of Churches, offered great advantages
both to the Emperor and the Pope.
14 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
CHAPTER II.
NEOOTIATIOirS BBTWEEK THE EmFEBOBS MaIHTEL AIO) JoHN Fa-
LfiOLOGI WITH THE FOPES OP BOHE Ain> THE COUNCIL OP BaSLE,
HEOABDDra THE UNION OP THE ChUBOHES.
The negotiations between Constantinople and Rome
concerning the union of Churches began in the lifetime
of the Emperor, Manuel Palseologus.^ Pope Martin
v., influenced by the Greek legate Eiidsemon, had
most graciously accepted the Emperor's proposal, and
sent letters to him and the patriarch Joseph, elected
patriarch from Metropolitan of Ephesus (1416). The
Constantinopolitans found tokens of the Pope^s dis-
position to peace in the fact that he styled the Pa-
triarch brother; that he gave his consent to the mar-
riage of two princesses of the Roman faith, with
John and Theodore the Emperor's sons; and lastly,
that he sent indulgences for those about to defenci
the newly erected fortifications in Morea. The Emperor
and the Patriarch returned thanks to the Pope for his
interest in the proposed union of Churches, noticing at
the same time, that in their opinion an (Ecumenical
Council oflfered the only means of restoring peace to the
Church. This Council, said they, free from external
influence, and avoiding unnecessary disputes, could well
investigate the causes of disagreement between the
> These negotiations date as early as the year 1415. Manuel sent his
legate to Italy from Morea where he was superintending the erection of
a fortification (4|a/i/\iov, a wall of six miles length). Synod. Flor. torn,
i. p. 551. Eudsemon was present at the election of Martin to the
Papal chair. Syr. iL 5.
NEGOTIATIONS BEGIN. l^'
Cimrches^ and as soon a9 its decision^ founded on the
doctrine taught by the ancient Fathers of the Churchy
should be sincerely and unanimously received^ then
could the union takeplace.^ To this the Emperor sub-
joined a petition for aid against the Turks. Martin
published a buU^ inviting all European monarchs to join
in the extirpation of the Turks^ at the same time or-
dering his Bishops to preach a crusade against them^
(July 10> 1420) ; appointed the Cardinal of S. Angelo his
legate in Constantinople^ with instructions to treat about
the peace^ and then in order to meet the expenses of the
proposed Council demanded pecuniary aid from the
Archbishops of Cologne^ Mayence, and Treves.^
On receiving from Constantinople the sudden news^
that the Turks had made several movements hindering
the convocation of a Coundl^ the Pope delayed his pro-
jected plans^ and sent his nuncio^ Antonio Massana^ to
make some preliminary arrangements as to the place
and time of the Council^ and the conditions under which
the union might take place. The Emperor received the
nuncio very graciously (Sept. 16^ 14&2), and had al-
ready named the day for treating on the conditions^
when of a sudden he was taken to his bed^ struck by
a fit of apoplexy^ and was thus obliged to entrust all
Stftfte affairs to his son John.
^ After much delay^ Antonio managed at length to
lay the Papal demands first before the Emperor, and
then before the Patriarch, in the presence of the other
Bishops. The nuncio declared, that the Pope heartily
* Syrop. iL 8.
3 Fleuiy, Hist. Eccles. ci. 51. The Pope required 6000 florins from
each Archbishop, di. 7.
16 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
wished for the union^ demanding only that the Emperor
should^ according to his promise^ receive the doctrine of
the Church of Bome^ and obey it; that the Pope is
agreeable to a convocation of a Council^ but wishes to
know when and where it will be convened.^ In answer
to this unexpected demand^ a letter was sent from Con-
stantinople^ stating^ that the Emperor gave no unconr
ditional consent to the union^ but only promised to
convene a Council like unto the seven (Ecumenical
Councils^ and assent to all the decisions of the Fathers^
made by them imder the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.
The Emperor fixed upon Constantinople for the Coimcil^
but could not determine the time of its session^ as the
town was then threatened by the Turks. In the end of
his letter^ the Emperor on his part demanded that the
Pope should oblige all the Christian monarchs of Europe
to declare war against the unbelievers.^
The Pope laid the Emperor's answer before the
Council convened first at Pavia, and then removed to
Sienna^ for settling the affairs of the Western Church.
But as this same Council was soon after broken up by
Martin^ who feared its decision might prove unfavour-
able to him^ the project of union remained without
any results at aU.^
In the meantime^ John^ who looked upon the union
as the only means for bettering the condition of his
^ Syr. ii. 10, 11; Heury, cii. 6, 7j Dupin, Nouv. Biblioth. des
Auteurs EccL
* Fleuiy, cii. 8 ; Dupin, tom. xii. p. 28, 29 ; Syr. ii. 10. The answer
was sent Nov. 14, 1442. From the 10th of July till the 6th of Sep-
tember Constantinople was besieged by Murad. Peace with him was
concluded February, 1424. Fhranza, i. 39, 40.
3 Fleury, ciL 12, 13 ; Dupin, tom. xii. p. 29.
JOHN FAUEOLOGUS ANB SIGISMUND. 17
empire^ made his way to Sigismund^ Emperor of Oer-
maiiy^ and tried his utmost to incline him to a war
against the Turks. Sigismund^ who was then himself
warring with the Hussites^ simply advised John to
bring on the union as soon as possible.^
Acting upon this advice^ and true to the promise
given to the Pope, through the nimcio, John, on his
return from Hungary, renewed his negotiations with
Rome concerning the Council ; but this time the legates
found their former proposition of assembling the Council
at Constantinople strenuously opposed by the Pope.
The Cardinals, with strange assurance, told them, that
''the Church of Rome is the mother, the Eastern
Church the daughter; it is not usual for the mother to
go to the daughter, but the daughter to go to the
mother ;'' and then demanded the convocation of the
Council in Italy. To keep his part of the compact, the
Pope promised to send ships and an army to defend the
town of Constantinople, and pay the Greeks 100,000
florins to cover the expenses of their journey to the
Council, and living during its session.^ The Greek
legates refused to accede to such a proposal without the
Elnperor's consent. To give more force to his demand,
' Syr. ii. 12. Just in this part of Syropulus's history there are
several pages missing. Nevertheless, lower down, Syropulus mentions
the results of the Emperor's interview with Sigismund (ii. 34, and iii.
18) : — "If you complete the union of the Churches," said Sigismund,
^then jou will conduce to the reform of the Latin Church. The
Christians of the East have more order than we have, for our people
have in many things diverged from the old order of matters." John's
voyage took up the time hetween the 15th of November, 1423, and Oc-
tober, 1424.
3 Syr. ii. 12, 13.
18 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
the Pope sent back with them his own legate Andrew^
Archbishop of Golossus,^ who, bom a Greek, had after-
wards joined the Church of Borne. At first the Em-
peror apparently consented to go to Italy; but after
asking the Patriarchs advice, he retracted his words,
and dismissed the Papal legate without any answer, at
the same time sending his general, Tagaris, and Maca-
rius, the Protosyncellus, with a note to the Pope, the
contents of which, Syropulus writes, as well as the
Pope's answer to it, are unknown to us.^
Day by day the relations of the empire to the Sultan
were becoming more and more embarrassing. In
April, 1430, he took Thessalonica by force of arms ; in
October Joannina was also his conquest. Harassed on
all sides, the Emperor was brought to the necessity of
acceding to the Papal demands. He forthwith sent an
embassy to Rome, inth his consent to Martin's pro-*
posal.
The Patriarch, though in public he agreed to the Em-
peror's wish, and obediently to his will asked the Pope's
consent and aid to the union of Churches, nevertheless,
in private, when in company with the more intimate of
his Clergy, told them that he would on no account go
to the Council in Italy. *' To be paid by the Pope,'^
said he, - means, to recognise his authority over myself.
And how shaU a hireUng slave refuse obedience to his
master? Think, also, what state shall we be in, if, once
in a strange land, we meet with a refusal to pay GUI'
expenses, and give us the means of returning home !
K [I.e., of Bhodes.]
3 Syr. ii. 14, 15. They returned from the Pope in August, 1490/
Fhranza, ii. 9.
EUGENTUS IV. POPE. 19
And why not convoke a Council here in Constantinople ?
Those who come here from, the West will be in no need
of ou^ help. If even 100,000 aspres were required,
they might easily be collected from the Bishops. The
Russian Metropolitan alone will bring as much to the
Emperor, who can well spare 20,000 out of it ; as much
can be obtained from the Archbishops of Georgia and
Servia; the Eastern Patriarchs can give 2,000, or at
least 1,000 florins; our rich folk will readily give 1,000
each, some 600, others 300 and 100 aspres.'' So
thought the Patriarch; but the Emperor had other
plans.
The legates came to Rome only in time to be present
at Martin's death-bed, (Feb. 20, 1431.) He was suc-
ceeded by Eugenius IV., (March 3, 1431.) In his letter
to the Emperor and Patriarch, the new Pope agreed to
assemble a Council in Italy, but evinced no great
enei^ in its cause. The Greeks were very much
offended with several of his expressions, and rather
troubled with some demands not mentioned to them by
Martin.^ Eugenius was also put into a very perplexing
position, as the sums collected by Martin for the as-
sembling of the Council had been embezzled by his re-
lations, so that Eugenius was obliged to enter into open
war with them.^
But very soon the Council of Basle made the Pope
more attentive to the scheme of the union of Churches,
and induced him to lay aside his pride and arrogance
while in intercourse with the Emperors of the East.
Eugenius, soon after the opening of the Council of
» ^. ii. 19, 20. 2 Fleury, di. 33, 84.
20 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
Basle^ (July 23, 1431,) noticed that the Council in'-
tended to act in the same spirit of independence from
the Pope, as its predecessor the Council of Constance.
This determined him to close the Council, (Dec. 18,
1431,) and fix upon another one at Bologna, to be held
in a year and a half's time, under plea that the Greeks
had promised to come to Italy for the union. But the
Council of Basle, backed by the Emperor Sigismund's
authority and the interest of all the German princes,
and France, gave the Pope a very decisive answer,
stating, that the Council does not intend changing its
place of convocation, or finishing its business in hand^
but rather means to set itself to the extirpation of he-
resies, the amelioration of morals, and restoration of
peace ; and hopes at the same time that Pope Eugenius
will favour the Council opened under his own auspices
and those of his predecessor. At the same time, the
Council confirmed the Constance decree respecting the
submission of every person, the Pope included, to the
authority of the Council ; demanded the Pope^s appear-
ance at it ; threatening, in case of his refusal, to judge
him according to the laws of the Church. The Pope,
at one time fearing decisive steps on the part of the
Council, at another oppressed by his discontented sub-
jects, who compelled him to fly from Rome, was obliged
to accede to the demands of the Fathers of Basle (Dec.
15, 1433), and sent his plenipotentiaries to sit at the
Council.
During these disputes the Council had, of its own
accord, opened negotiations with the Greek Emperor;
for Andrew, Archbishop of Colossus, sent by the Pope
to negotiate with the Council, had persuaded its mem-
NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE GREEKS. 21
bers that the Greeks sincerely desired the union of
Churches.^
Having sent Anthony, a Bishop, and Albertus, a Doc-
tor, to Constantinople, the Council invited the Greeks to
join, bringing forward, as an inducement to them, the
superiority of the Council^s authority to that of the
Pope, and its better ableness to bring about the union ;
showing also that many kings, and even the Emperor
Sigismund, sided with it, and that therefore there were
more hopes of aid for the Greeks from the Council than
from the Pope, whose glory was fast ebbing away.^
The Emperor John, notwithstanding he had already
begun negotiating with Eugenius, assented to the advan-
tageous proposals of the Council and sent his ambas-
sadors to Basle with letters from himself and the Pa-
triarch, authorising them to agree to anything decided
upon by the Council, with their consent, and conducive
to the peace of the Churches. Among these ambas-
sadors was Isidore, hegumen of the monastery of S.
Demetrius, and afterwards Metropolitan of Russia.^
1 Mentioning his former negotiations with the Greeks in Pope Mai*-
tin's time, Andrew remarks : " Nee audita vobis, Patres, pronuncio, sed
qiUD vidi et quae prsecepta ejusdem prsesulis (P. Martini) ipse contrec-
tavi et publica stipulatione concluseram." Of John Palseologus' last
mission to Eugenius he says : " Legati Grsecorum Pontificem adierunt et
coram Bomanorum Bege, domino Sigismundo, pro unionis negotio Im-
pCTator et Patriarcha Constantinopolitanus voluntatem et vota triginta
sex articulis patefeoerant. Scio quod verum loquor et quod hse manus
litteras obsignatas explicuerint et quss illic continebantur, ex Grsecis
Latina feceram." This speech was made by Andrew at the Council,
August 22, 1432. Bmii ConcU. t. yiii. p. 234.
3 Syr. ii. 21.
' The letters of the Patriarch and the Emperor (dated Oct. 15, 1433)
are; found in the Acts of the Council of Basle, Binii Concil. t. viii. pp. 57
32 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
Eugenius^ on learning of the Emperor's embassy to the
Council, contrary to his former plan, informed the Em-
peror of his readiness to convene a Council in Constan-
tinople. One can explain such a change in Eugenius^s
tactics by supposing that he could not part with his idea
of breaking up the Council, notwithstanding he was then
at peace with it. The present circumstances seemed
very opportune for his plans.^ Unaware what success his
negotiations with the Council of Basle would meet with,
the Emperor consented to the Pope's proposal, inform-
ing^ the Council of such a step on his part.
In the meantime the Emperor's ambassadors at Basle,
after a long deliberation with the Council deputies, en-
tered into a treaty with them, (Sept. 17, 1434.) They
declared, that (1) if the Council for the union of
Churches is to be convoked at Constantinople, all the
expenses connected with it will be paid by the Emperor;
in the contrary case, the Western Church must aid the
Greeks. (2.) The Council may be convoked, besides
Constantinople, in Calabria, in Milan, or Ancona, or in
any other seaport town; in Bologna, or some other
Italian town ; out of Italy, in Vienna, Buda, or in Savoy.
(3.) The ambassadors promised that the Emperor, Pa-
triarch, and other necessary persons would come to the
Council. On hearing these conditions, the Council
agreed to take upon itself the expenses necessary for
and 297. The Ghreek great stratopedarcb, Demetrius Falseologus, and
John Dis-hypatus, were also in the mission, together with Isidore.
^ Syr. ii. 22. Binii Concil. t. viii. p. 300. The Pope also wrote to
the King of Trebizond, as is evident &om the King's answer to the
Pope (Oct. 18, 1434) ; also to Boleslaus, the Gfrand Duke of Liyonia.
A separate letter was written by the Pope to Gregory, Metropolitan of
Moldoylachia. Le Quien. Or. Christ, t. i. p. 1252.
THE POPE THWARTS THE NEGOTIATIONS. 23
the maintenance and journey from Constantinople and
back of the Emperor and Bishops ; promised to send a
fleet and army to defend Constantinople in the absence
of the Emperor; showed readiness to convene the
Council in any of the above-mentioned places except
Constantinople itself; and lastly^ promised the Pope^s
consent to all these conditions.^ To have this treaty
ratified by the Emperor, three members of the Clergy
were sent to Constantinople — John of Bagusa^ Henry
Manger, and Simon Freyron, who brought the Greeks
8,000 florins to prepare with for the journey.^
Christopher, the Papal legate, arrived at the same
time as the ambassadors of Basle ; for the Council, on
coming to know of the agreement made between the
Pope and the Emperor, had represented to the Pope
how contrary to the honour of the Emperor, Pope,
and Council it was to break treaties solemnly made;
how great a danger threatened Constantinople, sur-
rounded as it was by the Turks. Eugenius, though in
his epistle to the Council of Basle (Feb. 22, 1435)
he insisted on the opening of the Council in Constan-
tinople,^ had sent oflf his own plenipotentiary with the
legates from Basle, who was ordered to confirm all the
decisions made by the Council ; but in reality secret in-
structions were given him by the Pope, to hinder the
Council as much as possible, to disconcert its relations
to the Greeks, and principally to work upon the aged
Patriarch, who of all was the most inclined for the as-
sembling of the Council in Constantinople.
* Binii t. viii. p. 55, et seq. 2 gyj, {{, 23, 24.
* Weissenberg. Die grossen Kirchenyersammlungeu xy. und xvi.
Jahrh. 2 Band» S. 363, 364.
24 HISTORY OF THE .COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
On coming to the Emperor^s presence^ the ambas-
sadors of Basle endeavoured to persuade him to con-
vene the Council in Basle instead of any of the other
places mentioned.! The Emperor inclined to their pro-
posal. But before giving his fuU consent, he formed a
committee of clergy and laymen to look over the treaty,
or rather the decree of the Council of Basle.^
In the very beginning of the decree, amongst many
other strange expressions, there was one as follows:
''The Fathers are assembled at the (Ecumenical Council
(of Basle) to extirpate the newly risen heresy of the
Bohemians (Hussites) and the ancient heresy of the
Greeks.^^3 Great was the astonishment of the Orthodox
on reading these words, insulting to all the Church, and
instantly it was demanded, that these words should either
be omitted or corrected. The ambassadors pleaded as
an excuse, that the words so offensive to the Greeks
were owing to the fault of the writer of the decree,
and even tried to put all the blame on the Greeks them-
selves, as they had heard the decree read at the Council,
and might then have demanded the correction of ex-
pressions unpleasant to them. At last it was decided
to make a new preface to the decree, and send it over
to Basle to receive the Council seal. The other parts
^ See speeches of the Basle legates in the Acts of the Council. Binii
t. viii. p. 220—222, and Syr. ii. 23.
2 Syr. ii. 25—27.
3 This is written in the decree thus ; " Hujus S. Synodi ab initio suse
congregationis prsecipua cura fuit, recens illud Bohemorum antiquum-
que Q-rsecoruni dissidium prorsus extinguere." Very likely disHdium
in the G-reek translation of the decree was rendered aXpfffis. At all
events, the comparison of the G-reeks with the Hussites, in point of
heresy, was justly a matter of offence to all the Orthodox.
BISHOPS AT CONSTANTINOPLE. 25
of the treaty were received without a word. As to the
place for the Council^ that was to be fixed upon as soon
as the Greeks should be ready to start. ^
The ratification of all these things by the Pope^s
legate was the next thing demanded. After many vain
efforts to avoid a decisive answer, the legate told the
Greeks, that he had the Pope's authority to ratify, and
did ratify all arrangements made until that time, and
as a proof of his words showed the Council the Pa-
pal decree, which indeed authorized him to act as he
did.
Thus the decree was copied and sent to Basle with
the letters from the Emperor, his brother Constantine,
and the Patriarch (Nov. 1435), containing besides the
former conditions, a new demand of the Pope's personal
appearance at the Council, as the Head of the Latin
Church and the West.^
The following year the revised decree was sent from
Basle with the Council seal.^ The Emperor began to
assemble the Bishops. Legates with letters and pre-
sents were sent into different provinces of the Eastern
Church. The holy Fathers began to assemble in Con-
stantinople. Georgia sent two Bishops and a royal
minister ; Trebizond sent a Metropolitaii and a legate ;
the Metropolitan of Moldovlachia also arrived with his
suite. Isidore, a short time before this ordained Me-
* Syr. ii. 28, 30, 32, 35. Syropulus' words are attested by the extant
acts of the Council : 1. Articuli Imperatoris Constantinopolitani ; 2.
Articnli responsorii Ambassadorum Concilii ; 8. Promissiones factse per
Ambassadores S. Concilii. Binius, Concil. t. viii. p. 219, 223.
2 Letters joined to the Acts. Binii t. viii. p. 301, 302.
3 This decree is found in the Acts of the Council of Basle, twenty-
fourth session. Bin. Cone. t. yiii. p. 68.
C
26 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
tropolitan of Russia^ was ordered on his departure for
Moscow to arrange affairs^ so as for Russia also to take
part in the union of Churches, and to bring Russian
legates and Bishops back with him to Constantinople.
An embassy was also sent to the despot of Servia, bui
neither letter, nor legate was ever received from himi
The envoys sent to the Patriarchs of Alexandria, An-
tioch, and Jerusalem, brought back letters from them, in
which the Patriarchs, though refusing to appear per-
sonally at the Council, at the same time named their
representatives.^ The Alexandrian Patriarch chose An-
tony Metropolitan of Heraclea, and Marcus Eugenicus,
then as yet a plain monk ; the Patriarch of Antioch
chose Joasaph of Ephesus, and the Emperor's confessor^
Gregory ; the Patriarch of Jerusalem named Dionysius
of Sardis, and the Russian Metropolitan Isidore. All
these appointments were made under the direction of
the envoy, conformably with the Emperor's wish^ and
even without any preliminary consent of the Patriarch
of Constantinople.
In the Ypifj.fj.aTa given to the Patriarchal vicars {M"
TpQTttn) the Patriarchs authorized them to give their con-i
sent only to such things as were conformable with the
rules of the Councils and the writings of the fathers.
Such conditions were anything but agreeable to John
the envoy from Basle, and the Emperor; they were
found to be too mean for the patriarchal vicars, as
limiting too much their liberty of action. The Em-
peror demanded, that the Patriarchs should send out
new ypaftftara, writing them in a form already sent to
^ Syr. iii. 2. Before leaving for the Council, Mark, Bessanon, and
DionysiuB, were raised to the rank of Metropolitans.
PRELIMINARY EASTERN COUNCIL. 27
them. The demand was complied with^ and besides
this^ the Patriarchs changed some of the appoint-
ments.^
Haying dismissed the envoys to the Eastern Fathers^
the Emperor informed the Pope of his readiness to start
for the Council with the Patriarch and clergy. Another
envoy was despatched to the Fathers of Basle with a
demand^ that the promised galleys should be sent to
Constantinople by the autumn.
In the mean time the Emperor assembled a council
of the most illustrious nobles out of the clergy and
laity, well known for their learning, and bade them
enter into some preliminary discussions about the ap-
proaching dispute with the Latins. Cantacuzene, one
of the highest nobles in the empire, and a strict up-
holder of Orthodoxy, said, that the first subject for
the Council ought to be the addition to the symbol of
faith, as one of the principal points in dispute between
the Churches. Georgius Scholarius, the most learned
man of his time, gave his advice, remarking, that, in
order to reccmcile the Churches, the Council must care-
fully investigate the disputed doctrine, and confirm it
with the clear and incontrovertible words of the Church
Teachers. Should the Emperor seek the union from
political views, then there is no need of troubling many
persons ; two or three envoys alone could very well end
the affair. The Emperor himself was far from wishing
the Greeks to give way to the Latins without any dispute.
For this reason it was determined to look over the works
of the former defenders of Orthodoxy, written during
their disputes with the Latins, and especially the works
* Syr. iii. 3, 4.
c 2
28 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
of Nilus Cavasilas.^ It was also intended to send to
Mount Athos for some of the old books, but these
were never received.^ Lastly, came the discussion as
to the persons fit to be sent to the Council, among
whom was one Nilus Tarchaniotes ; but the Emperor
fearing that Nilus, being a monk, would be too firm in
his opinions, and thus spoil the whole affair, would not
agree to send him.^
In the meantime great disturbances were going on at
Basle between the members of the Council, who could
not agree as to where the Synod should be assembled,
and found the proposed sum insufficient for paying the
Greeks the expenses of their voyage and stay. A final
rupture between them and the Pope was the result. The
greater part of the Council resolved to hold a Council
at Basle, and in case of the Greeks disagreeing to this,
— at Avignon or some city in Savoy ; to cover expenses,
— indulgences were liberally promised to those who
would materially aid the holy cause of the union, and a
tithe was to be collected from the Western Clergy.
Nevertheless the ambassador who arrived from Con-
stantinople with the news of the Greeks' readiness to
start for the Council (Feb. 7, 1437) opposed the plan of
assembling the Council either at Basle or at Avignon,
#
^ Nilus Cayasilas, Metropolitan of Thessalonica, lived in the first half
of the fourteenth century. He left many works written against the
Latin Church, namely : 1. On the Causes of Dissension in the Church :
2. On the Papal Supremacy (both these works are published in Q-reek) :
3. Several books containing a refutation of the Latin doctrine on the
Holy Ghost. The first two works, and some of the last, are met with
in Slavonian manuscripts of ancient translation.
2 Only two monks arrived from Mount Athos as deputies to the
Council.
3 Syr. iii. 5— 7.
THE POPE AND THE COUNCIL OF BASLE. 29
as these towns were not named in the Emperor's treaty
with the Council ; he would not even agree to any town
in Savoy for the Council, though that was named in the
treaty, under the plea, that the Greeks applied this
name not to the province itself, but to the towns be-
longing to the Duke of Savoy in Italy. The Pope also,
ever aiming at the dissolution of the Council of Basle,
sent his Legate there announcing his disapproval both
of the places named for the Council session, and of the
means for collecting money for the Greeks. On the 7th
of May, 1437, ballot was resorted to, in order to put an
end to all dissension, two-thirds of the members voting
for the former towns, and the rest for Florence or Udino.
Both parties wrote down their votes, which were read in
the Cathedral, and the Council seal was then affixed to
the decision carried by the majority of votes. It was
then that the weaker party had recourse to a very un-
creditable action: in the night the Council seal was
carried off and affixed to their own decision. The Pope,
availing himself of all these disturbances, ratified the
decision of the weaker party, favourable to his own
views (29th June), though afterwards he changed his
mind and fixed upon Ferrara for the Council. Mean-
while the discontented members leaving Basle sided
with the Pope. Among them was Julian Caesarini,
who, in after time, played a prominent part in the acts
of the Ferraro-Florentine Council.^
In order to anticipate the arrangements of the Coun-
cil of Basle, the Pope sent off some galleys with a legate
to Constantinople, and three Bishops inviting the Em-
peror and Greek Bishops to a Council in Italy. The
Emperor's arrival in Italy was an event of great impor-
^ Dupin, xii. pp. 37, 38.
80 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
tance to the Pope. As the Council of Basle had pro-
mised that the Pope should^ as a matter of course, take
part in the union of Churches^ and Eugenius himself
would have nothing to do with the Council, it became
very evident that the Council would soon pass its judg-
ment against him, and elect another Pope.
The legate declared that the Pope had made peace
with the fathers of the Council; that the Council was
dissolved, and another was to be convened in Italy .^
At the same time, a learned Greek, George of Trebi-
zond, who then lived in the West and was a son of the
Latin Church, wrote to the Emperor, and assured him
that during the distorted condition of the Western
Church — during the contests between the Pope and the
Council — the appearance of the Emperor in Italy on the
Pope^s side would pf itself alone terminate all disputes.^
The Emperor had already given orders for all ap-
pointed to attend the Council — ^to get ready for the
voyage. But twenty days had scarcely elapsed since
the arrival of the Papal ships, when suddenly the galleys
promised by the Council of Basle entered the Bosphorus.
The rivals would have engaged each other in a naval
fight, if the Emperor had not restrained them. The
Papal legates and those of Basle spared neither efforts
nor money to press the Greeks to their separate views.
But soon the real state of Western affairs became evi-
dent to the Greeks, and made them still more puzzled
which party to join. The legates of Basle declared that
1 Syr. iii. 8, 9. The legate arriTed with the galleys in the end of
September, 1437.
3 This letter is affixed to the History of George Fhranza. Ingolstadt,
1604 ; pp. 325—331.
DEFA&TUBE OF THE GREEKS. 31
peace had been^ and was at the time impossible between
the Council and the Pope. One of them^ a long resi-
dent in Constantinople^ advised the Patriarchy as a
friend^ not to go either to Basle or to Italy. Many of
the Bishops inclined the Emperor to the same step.
Even Sigismund sent a courier to Constantinople^ per-
suading the Emperor to delay the union of Churches
for a time, untU the internal dissensions in the Western
Church came to an end. Lastly, Sultan Murad coun-
selled the Emperor to rely more on the stability of an
alliance with him than with the Latins. But, notwith-
standing all these counsels and advices, the Emperor,
rejecting the proposals of the Council of Basle, deter-
mined to sail for Italy in the galleys of Bome.^
CHAPTER III.
DXFABTUBE OB THE Q^BEESS K>B THE COTTNOIL AND THEIB ABSIVAL
m Feebaba.
As soon as the voyage to Italy was decided upon, the
Patriarch chose the Bishops who were to accompany
him to the Council. They were twenty-two in number,
including those sent from Trebizond, Georgia, and Mol-
davia, viz. : — Mark, Metropolitan of Ephesus ; Doro-
theus of Trebizond ; Antony of Heraclea; Metrophanes
of Cyzicus; Bessarion of Nicsea; Macarius of Nicome-
dia; Dionysius of Sardis; and the Metropolitans of
Teruovo, Monemvasia, Lacedsemon, Amasia, Mitylene,
Stauropolis, Moldovlachia, Rhodes, Melenicus, Drama,
1 Syr. iu. 11—14.
32 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OP FLORENCE.
Joannina^ Silistria^ Anchialus^ and Georgia^ with one
Bishop.^ At the same time the Patriarchal ypififji^uTa
were given to the Vicars, in whose election some changes
were made. The Metropolitan of Heraclea was ap-
pointed Vicar of the Patriarchate of Alexandria ; the
Emperor's Chaplain, Gregory, with the Russian Metro-
politan, of the Patriarchate of Antioch ; the Metro-
politan of Ephesus and Sardis of the Patriarchate of
Jerusalem.^
First in learning, firmness of character, and ortho-
doxy among the Greek Bishops, was Mark, Metropolitan
of Ephesus. A native of Constantinople, he, in his
youth, received an education suitable to his age, and
especially gave himself up to theological studies and the
practice of eloquence. He was Principal of the Con-
stantinopolitan school,^ and acquired so great a reputa-
tion for his sermons, that many persons from other
provinces often asked him to write a sermon for such
and such a festival.* Belonging to the K\Y}po$ of the
great Constantinopolitan Church, he chose to seclude
himself from the world and entered the Monastery of
Mangana. Here, in a lonely cell^ invisible even to his
relations, he made the study of the Holy Scriptures and
the Works of the Fathers the exclusive and favourite
study of his mind and heart.^ This was how Mark
1 Syr. iii. 15. 2 Syr. iii. 20.
3 Gregor. protosjncel. Apologia in Morci confessionem ap. Allat. de
Cons. Eccl. p. 934.
* Ejusdem responsio ad epist. Marci in Synod. Flor. t. 11, p. 455.
^ The information respecting the life of Mark of Ephesus is found in
the work of Manuel the Ehetorician (1590) under the name oiAdyos ircpl
MApKov Tov M7iTpoiro\irov *E^€(rov Kcd ttjs iv ^Xxop^vrlt^ (rvv6hov. MS. of
the Moscow Synod. Library in Matthias's catalogue, No. 393, p. 112.
MARK OF EFHESU8 — BE88ARION. 33
came to acquire a thorough knowledge of the principles
of the Orthodox Faith. His clear^ disciplined mind
quickly saw the errors of the enemies of Orthodoxy^ and
found a ready apology for the truth ; his deep religious
feeling sustained him in the contest^ and he would
sooner die than turn traitor to the truth.
Bessarion, like Mark^ was also one of the most learned
men of his time. Well versed in theological science, he
at the same time evinced such facilities of speech, that
even the Greeks avowed his superiority in this respect
over their favourite, Mark.^ Besides these qualities,
he had acquired renown among his contemporariesr
for being a subtle philosopher and warm defender of
Plato. He was the favourite of the Emperor John
Palaeologus, who sought his advice on nearly everything,
when about to depart for the Council.^ But failings he
had also : that firmness of character, that pure and in-
corruptible love of the truth, that soundness in the
development of ideas, — traits so characteristic in Mark,
— were not to be found in Bessarion. His egotism was
likely to make him very soon break his friendship with
one who was evidently becoming his rival.^ This is
why Bessarion could never be a trusty coadjutor of
Mark, in a cause to join which he was called upon by
the Emperor.
' Syr. T. 5. The Emperor, on reading the two answers to the Latins,
written one by Mark and the other by Bessarion, gave the former pre-
ference for the strength of his arguments, and found more oratorical art
in the latter. Syr. t. 14.
^ See testimony of Amirutius, who, with other learned Qreeks, was
present at the Council, contained in his letter to Prince Demetrius.
Allat. de cons. Eodies. p. 884.
» Syr. V. 16.
c3
34 HISTOBY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
Joseph, the Fatiiarch of Constantinople^ whose high
rank made him an influential person in the Council^
proved by his administration that he was hardly equal
to his office in the Church and the circumstances
of the time. Old, weak, and undecided, he allowed
himself to be influenced by the laity in nearly every
step he took, and, as a matter of course, could not suc-
cessfully defend the Orthodox party of the Council
against the attacks of a strong opposition. At times, it
is true, he showed a sincere desire of guarding Orstho-
doxy from her enemies ; but sound faculties and firm-
ness of character were wanting in him, to enable him
to enter into an open contest with these enemies.
While nourishing hopes of success and glory among his
posterity, he had always a ready answer in case of un-
success : " If even,^^ he used to say, " the Latins force
us to something, we will always keep to the sound doc-
trine of the Fathers. Let them threaten us with tor-
tures ; we will sooner sufier any pain than turn traitors
to anything received by us from the (Ecumenical Coun-
cils and the holy teachers of the Church : we will either
be martyrs in deed, or martyrs in will.^^^ But time
proved Joseph false to his own words.
Six spiritual lords of the great Constantinopolitan
Church were to accompany the Patriarch to the Council,
in the capacity of his councillors. Among them was
the great Ecclesiarch, Syropulus, author of the history
of this Council; also three hegumens, the Emperor's
lower chaplain, three monks (hieromonachs), and several
members of the Clergy .^ Gregory, the Emperor's chap-
laiQ, called Mammas, possessing particular rights as
1 Syr. iii. 16. 2 gyp. iii. 15.
OEOROB SCHOLARIUB. 35
▼icar, first of the Patriarch of Antioch^ and then of
Alexandria^ closely attached to the Emperor^ was ne-
Tertheless incapable of using his rights to advantage in
the canse of the Church. His character — mean^ irri-
table^ without any set rules of conduct^ and at the same
time ^otistical — repelled every one who came into con-
tact with him^ and made him an object of universal
hate. It really is astonishing how such a man could
creep into the confidence of the Emperor^ a man always
so cautious and prudent.
Many laymen also accompanied the Emperor to Italy.
Besides the Emperor^s brother^ Demetrius^ the despot^
several court ofiicers and learned men also joined the
Imperial suite. High in the list of these persons^ on
account of his great knowledge of theology and philo-
sophy^ stood George Scholarius. Enjoying the con-
fidence and good-will of John^ he was at the same time
on friendly terms with Mark of Ephesus^ his teacher.
The celebrated though aged philosopher^ Oemistes
PlethOy was also taken to the Council. His advice was
sought by the Emperor at the beginning of negotiations
with the Church of Rome.^ In the Council he was a
warm defender of orthodoxy^^ and at the same time re-
vived in the Florentines a love for Plato^s philosophy, by
his animated lectures on that subject while in Florence.^
November 27th, 1437, the Emperor, Patriarch, and
other members of the clergy and laity, after many Te
Deums in the great Church of Constantinople and the
monastery of the Hodigetria, set out on their voyage.*
1 Syr. yi 10. ? Syr. vii. 8.
3 GkmnadiiiB und Fletho, Ton Grass, 1844, Breslau, § 27.
♦ Syr. It. 1. A particular ectene was composed for the occasion : " We
36 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OP FLORENCE.
In the meantime Pope Eugenius, on the 18th of Oc-
tober in the same year, published a bull^ in which it was
said, that for the more advantageous union of the
Churches and the bettering of Church affairs, brought
by the Council of Basle into a condition worse than
their former one, a Council was about to be convened
in Ferrara, and that all the cardinals, bishops, and
abbots are to remove immediately from Basle to Fer-
rara, to discuss ecclesiastical affairs.^ Nicholas Al-
bergati,^ Cardinal of the Holy Cross of Jerusalem, at
the Pope^s commission came to Ferrara with several
bishops (Jan. 8, 1438), and opened the Council. When
Eugenius himself arrived with his cardinals to the
second sitting of the Council (Feb. 14), there were al-
ready more than seventy bishops present. Then was
read the Papal bull, excommunicating all present at the
Council of Basle, degrading all the members of the
clergy and laity from their respective ranks, and bidding
the city magistrates expel all the Fathers of the Council
from Basle, and that too in the course of a month,
under pain of excommunication.^
The Council of Basle for its own part (in the sittings
of October 12, 1437, and January 24, and March 24, in
1438) declared the Council of Ferrara and all its acts
illegal ; and after many invitations to Eugenius to come
to Basle, excommunicated him, and finally demanded
that all the bishops assembled in Ferrara should, in the
also pray for the peace, success, amelioration, and union of the Christian
Churches." Syr. iii. 18.
1 Binii Concil. t. viii. p. 274.
3 Yita B. Nicolai Albergati in Act. 35 Maii, t. L, p. 467, et seq.
» Fleury, cii. 92.
THE GREEKS AT VENICE. 37
course of a months come to Basle^ under pain of eccle-
siastical punishment for disobedience.^ Thus arose a
new dissension in the Western Church ; and what was
still worse, it was caused by those very persons who
took upon themselves the duty of reconciling the Church
of the East with their own.^
On the arrival of the Greeks at Venice, the Pope first
sent Nicholas Albergati and then Julian Caesarini, in-
viting the Emperor and Patriarch to Ferrara. Here,
again, the Greeks questioned themselves, whether to go
to Basle or to Ferrara. The Doge of Venice advised
them to wait for the arrival of a new embassy from
Basle. On the other hand, the Legate Christopher
did his utmost to prevail upon the Emperor and Pa-
triarch to join the Pope, more than once betaking him-
self to presents and the most eloquent persuasions. At
last the Greeks fell into his snares.^ The three weeks
spent in Venice acted so beneficially on most of the
Greeks, and even on some of the bishops, that they
called it the promised land.* Here was another
dangerous rock for the future defenders of orthodoxy !
Comparing the miserable state of their own empire,
then nearly overpowered by the Turks, with the luxury,
liberty, and comforts of Western life, the weaker Greeks
were easily tempted to a peace, promising much for
their earthly welfare.
1 Binii Condi, t. viii. Basiliens. secc. xxix., xxxi., xxxii.
^ In this sense Mneaa Sylvius, afterwards Pope of Eome, under the
name of Pius II., wrote : " Bisit Oriens Latinorum insaniam, qui, sibi
ipsi dissentientes, aliorum unionem perquirerent."
3 Syr. It. 12—14.
* The identical words of Dorotheus of Mitylene, the historian of the
Council of Florence. Synod. Mor. p. 6.
38 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
At Francolino^ a village situated at about an hour and
a half s ride from Ferrara, the Emperor was met by the
Papal legate, the city governor, and other town officials.
The next day (March 4) the Emperor, accompanied by
his suite, the Pope^s bishops and the officials of Ferrara,
made his solemn entry into the town. The Pope, with
the cardinals, bishops, and abbots, awaited him in the
palace. On the Emperor's entrance the Pope arose,
embraced him, and giving him his hand, which the
Emperor kissed, seated him beside himself. After a
private conversation, the Emperor retreated to the
palace prepared for him.i
The Patriarch arrived at Ferrara later than the Em^
peror. As soon as Joseph neared Francolino, a mag-
nificent galley was sent out for him, and brought him
to land with the bishops and the rest of the clergy.
The next day the Emperor informed the Patriarch that
the Pope expected him to bend his knees before him,
and kiss his shoe. This was a sad blow for the Patriarchy
who little expected such a welcome from his brother in
Christ. While at Venice, he said to one in the Pope's
confidence : '^ If the Pope is older than I am, I will re-
spect him as a father ; if my equal in age, I shall look
upon him as my brother; if younger, he shall be as a
son to me." In the afternoon six bishops were sent to
congratulate Joseph on his arrival, and demand the
usual obeisance to the Pope. The Patriarch told the
bishops straightforwardly that he could only consent to
a brotherly embrace ; and, assembling tis bishops, in-
dignantly told them of the papal demand. The Metro-
politan of Trebizond reminded him that he was advised,
^ Syrop. It. 17. Synod. Mor. viii. 11.
MEETING OF THE POPE AND PATRIARCH. 39
irhile in Venice, to think upon the subject carefully;
but then his answer was, that the Pope would receive all
with honour and respect. The Metropolitan of Hera-
dea deelared, that he and the Metropolitan of Monem-
vasia, when presented to the Pope, did not kiss his
shoes, and cared very little for his anger. Meanwhile,
the Emperor sent another messenger, saying, that he
was still disputing with the Pope as to the means of
preserving the Patriarch^* dignity. Joseph made the
following answer to the bishops sent a second time to
him by the Pope : ^^Tell me, why does the Pope appro-
priate such privileges to himself? What Council, what
Church canon has confirmed this custom ? If the Pope
is the successor of the Apostle Peter, we are the suc-
cessors of the other Apostles. And did the other Apos-
tles kiss Peter's feet? Who has ever heard of this ?"
The legates answered that the custom was of ancient
date, and that bishops, kings, the Emperor of Germany,
and even the Cardinals, who are higher than the Em-
peror, remain true to it. But the Patriarch with great
decision kept to his former demand of a brotherly wel-
come from the Pope, promising, in case of refusal, not
to land, or let any of his bishops do so either. At last
the Pope acquiesced to Joseph's demand, pretending a
sincere desire for peace.^
On the 8th of March, four cardinals, about twenty-
five bishops, the city governor, with many court officers,
came to the Patriarch, and early in the morning accom-
panied him with his clergy to the papal palace. The
Pope, to conceal his forcjd humility from the people,
would not give the Eastern fathers a solemn audience,
1 Syr. It. 18—21.
40 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
but received them in his cell. On the entrance of the
Patriarch, with six Metropolitans, Eugenius arose, and
gave him a brotherly kiss. The rest of the bishops
next came up, six at a time, and kissed the Pope's hand
and right cheek. During the presentation of the
Greeks, the Patriarch alone sat on a low stool, to the
left of the Pope, behind the legate Christopher, who
acted as an interpreter: the other bishops remained
standing. The same day the Patriarch asked the Pope's
permission to officiate in the liturgy according to the
rites of the Greek Church.^
CHAPTER IV.
Opening op thb Council in Feeeaea. Psivate disputes oh
puboatobt.
The arrangement of seats for the members of the
Council in the cathedral of S. George was also the sub-
ject of many disputes. The Latins wished the Papal
throne to be erected in the centre of the church, and
the Latin and Greek Bishops to take their places at the
right and left side of the throne. On meeting with a
refusal in this firom the Greeks, the Latins determined
to move the Papal throne to the right aisle, and there
construct places for the Latin Bishops, leaving the op-
posite side for the Emperor, Patriarch, and the other
Greeks. Next to the Papal seat, a throne was erected
for the Emperor of Germany; then followed the seats
* Syr. iy. 22, 23. Synod. Mor. pp. 14, 15.
ARRANGEMENT OF THE COUNCIL. 41
for the Cardinals and Bishops. On the left hand side
a similar throne was constructed for the Greek Em-
peror ; next to him a throne for the Patriarch and seats
for the Eastern Bishops. In the centre of the church
a separate place was left for the speakers, or those, who
were to enter into dispute with each other. But even
then the Greeks experienced much that was unpleasant.
The Papal throne differed a good deal, not only from
the Patriarch^s, but even the Emperor^s throne, by being
more elevated and of richer material. The Patriarch
complained. The Emperor simply remarked, that there
was nothing but worldly vanity in the arrangement of
the Council, contrary to the rules of the Church.^
Desiring to put in order the affairs of the Empire
with the aid of the Western monarchs, John expressed
his wish to the Pope, that not only the Western Bishops
should preside at the Council, but also the sovereigns of
Europe, or at least their representatives. The Pope at
first refused to comply with the Emperor^s wish, seeing
an impediment for it in the different wars and dissen-
sions between the different kingdoms of Europe; but
at the Emperor's urgent request, he promised to send
his legate to the Kings and Princes of Europe with in-
vitations to the Council. On this account the discus-
sions on doctrinal subjects were put off for the space of
four months. But in order not to lose time, the Pope,
with the Emperor's consent, determined on opening the
Council, hoping to entice a few Bishops from Basle by
letting them know of the opening of the Council, gain
over the general opinion and thus strengthen the weaker
party. According to the Pope^s arrangement, delegates
» Syr. iy. 25, 26.
42 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
from both sides were to occupy themselves during these
four months with private discussions on subjects of dis-
agreement between the Greeks and Latins.
At the same time^ the Emperor with great difficulty
persuaded the Pope to allow the Greeks money for their
maintenance^ instead of the daily rations of food they
were receiving Uke beggars, quite contrary to the agree-
ments made in the treaty.^ Generally speaking, the
Greeks made constant complaints about this during the
whole time of the CouncU session in Perrara and
Florence. The Pope found this the best way of making
the Greeks obedient. For whenever the Greeks refused
to comply with any of his wishes, he immediately stopped
their pay, so that many of the Bishops were obliged to
sell their clothes. But as soon as the Greeks agreed to
his proposals, their wages were immediately given out
as a sort of reward for their obedience. So it was at
this very time. As long as the Greeks disputed about
the Council seats, no money was given them. But
when the disputes were ended, their monthly allowance
was paid out.
A short time before the opening of the Council, new
changes took place in the appointments of the vicars of
Patriarchs. Gregory the chaplain was appointed second
vicar of the Patriarch of Alexandria, together with the
Metropolitan of Heraclea, and Mark of Ephesus, Vicar
of Antioch with the Russian Isidore. It seems very
evident, that the Emperor wished by means of these
changes, to find in case of need among these representa-
^ The Pope allowed the Emperor a monthly salary of 30 florins, the
Patriarch 25, the Despot 20 ; 4 florins to the officers of the Imperial
and Patriarchal court, and 3 florins to the servants.
OPENING OF THE COUNCIL AT FERRABA. 43
tiyes of the Patriarch at least one on his own side. With
this object in view he appointed Gregory and Isidore^
persons both very weak in character^ together with the
firm defenders of Orthodoxy — Antony of Heraclea and
Mark of Ephesus. Dionysius the vicar of the Patriarch
of Jerusalem was then iU and died soon after the open-
ing of the Council.^ Ash Wednesday, the 9th of April,
was fixed upon by the Pope for the opening of the
Council. The Patriarch refused to be present under
plea of illness, but gave his consent to the opening.
The Pope was the first to enter the cathedral, and im-
mediately sat down on his throne in the northern aisle.
After him came the Emperor, with his brother, the pa-
triarchal vicars, and the Bishops, with the lower orders
of the clergy, and sat down opposite to the Pope. The
Latin Church was represented by eight Cardinals, a
great number of Bishops and lower clergy .^ On a desk
^ Syr. iv. 27 — ^29. Syropulus, who received the ypdfifiara of the former
yiean and gave new ones to the newly appointed ones with the Fatnarchs'
snbflciiptioii, does not tell us where he got the ypdfifiara &om. Diony-
sius, Metropolitan of Sardis, died on the 13th of April, as is seen from
the epitaph composed by Bessarion of Mcsea. Tie Quien, 1. 1, p. 666.
Syropolus (y. 1,) mentions the 24th of Apnl as the day of Dionysius'
funeraL
' * Different opinions are to be found concerning the number of Latin
Bishops at the Council. Dorotheus of Mitylene before describing the
opening of the Council, counts 150 Cardinals and Bishops (p. 17) ; but
in the very description of the opening 200 are named (p. 20) . Syropulus
mentions 11 Cardinals and 150 Bishops as present at the opening of
the Coundl (t. 3). But only 141 members signed the act of union ;
ionong them was the Fopd himself the Emperor, the patriarchal yicars,
Latin and Ghreek Cardinals and Bishops, Hegumens, Abbots, and
Hieromonachs. G^rge of Trebizond reckons. 400 fathers (Gh*sec. Orth.
1, 579), but no &ith can be put in his words, as he makes out 200 of the
Easterns alone.
44 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
in the centre of the church before the altar, the gospel
was placed, and on its sides the statues of S. Peter and
S. Paul.^ As soon as silence was enforced, the Pope
exclaimed : " Blessed be the Lord God of Israel V'
Some psalms were then sung, and prayers said, after
which the Greek Archdeacon read the patriarchal decree
inviting all to take part in the Council. " All the higher
orders of the clergy, kings, and princes,^^ the decree
said, " are to send their vicars and ambassadors, if not
able to come themselves. Whosoever will not come to
the appointed time, and afterwards will not receive the
decrees of this Council, shall be excommunicated from
the Church.^^ The Papal decree was then read, relative
to the opening of an (Ecumenical Council in Ferrara,
and then this first short sitting was closed by hymns.
The Pope sent copies of this decree to the Western
monarchs, urging them to despatch their envoys to the
Council.2 But all the expectations of the Pope proved
fruitless. The Council of Basle continued to threaten
the Papal throne, and threatened to excommunicate any
one who should only dare to go to the Council convoked
by the Pope. It is true, that the imperial court on
Sigismund's death, declared that they would neither
receive any Council decrees against the Pope, nor those
of the Pope against the Council, but that they receive
both the Council and the Pope. But not one of the
western monarchs either approved of the Council con-
^ In the KuBsian description of Isidore's mission to Florence, we find
the following words : " and then bringing in, (the statues of) SS. Peter
and Paul made of silver gilt, they placed them on the ground." Ancient
Library, iv. 52.
2 Syrop. iv. 31 ; v. 1. Syn. Flor. p. 15, 29.
PBIVATB DISCUSSIONS. 45
vened by the Pope, or wished to oppose the Council
of Basle, and sent no envoys to the Council convoked in
Italy. It was only towards the end of the Council sit-
tings at Ferrara, that the envoys of the Duke of Bur-
gundy arrived; on entering the Council they kissed the
Pope^s slipper, but showed no marks of respect to the
Emperor, behaving just as if he had never been pre-
sent.^
After Easter (April 13) the Pope required the Greeks
to commence the private discussions. The Greeks de-
layed, waiting for the envoys of Basle.^ But at last,
after the Pope had repeated his demands three times,
ten persons were chosen from both sides, who were to
assemble three times a week in the church of a monas-
tery, to discuss upon the different points of dispute.^
The Greeks chose from their side — the Metropolitans of
Ephesus, Monemvasia, Nicaea, Lacedaemon, Anchialus,
and five other members of the Council. The imperial
oflScer Manuel Jagaris, was also ordered to be present.
Strict orders were given by the Emperor that only Mark
and' Bessarion should enter into disputes with the Latins,
who were, nevertheless, in case of necessity, to seek
counsel from the rest; that nothing was to be said on
* Wissenberg, 1, p. 372. Synod. Flor. p. 297, et seq.
2 Synod. Flor. p. 29.
3 Here a slight difference occurs between the narrations of Syropulus
and Dorotheus. One says, that three sittings took place every week,
the other speaks of two only. The former says, that ten members were
chosen &om each side ; the latter mentions twelve, including the two
notaries. One says again, that the meetings were to take place in the
church of the monastery of S. Andrew ; the other, in the church of S.
Francis ; but the last named church might have been in the monastery
of S. Andrew. Syr. v. 3. Syn. Flor. p. 29.
46 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
the more serious points of dispute^ and that a report
should be made to him at the end of every sitting.^
Generally speakings the Emperor wished that the im-
possibility of reconciling Orthodoxy with the Latin doc-
trine should not become too evident before he had at-
tained the object in view.
Soon after his arrival in Ferrara^ Mark of Ephesus^ at
the instigation of Cardinal Julian, determined to write
a letter of thanks to the Pope for the assembling of the
Council ; and noticed in it, that if the Church of Rome
wishes to finish as well as she has begun, then she must
retract her doctrine on the procession of the Holy
Ghost, and not perform the Liturgy in azymes. The
Emperor on learning this nearly gave Mark over to the
judgment of the Greek Council for daring to express
such thoughts to the Latins.^ And even now, when
authorizing the chosen persons to dispute with the
Latins, he bade them not reject the Latin opinions
simply on account of their disagreeing with the Greek
doctrine, but to look upon every question as not yet
decided, and then by universal efforts attain its so-
lution, looking upon the opinion of all as final and
decisive.3
The Latins chose for carrying on disputes two car-
dinals, Julian Csesarini and Nicholas Albergati; An-
drew, the Bishop of Colossus or Rhodes ; John de Tur-
recremata ;* and several other abbots.
1 Syr. V. 3. 2 gyj. y^ 2. » Syr. vii. 8.
^ John the Spaniard, also called Turrecremata, a Dominican abbot,
receiyed his education in the University of Paris, and, for his energy in
the cause of the Bomish Church, received the Cardinalship from the
Pope, and the title of " Pidei defensor et protector." Cave, Hist. Lit.
t. xi. App. p. 143. . .
QUESTIONS IN DISPUTE. 47
In the third sitting of the Council^ Julian^ after mu-
tual congratulations^ showed that the principal points
of dispute between the Greeks and Latins were in the
doctrine (a) on the procession of the Holy Ghost,
(/3) on azymes in the Eucharist, (y) on purgatory, and
(S) on the Papal supremacy; and then asked them
which of these subjects was to be discussed first.
The Greeks delayed discussing the first point till the
opening of the (Ecumenical Council, and promised to
give a speedy answer about the others as soon as the
Emperor's advice should be heard. The Emperor
fixed upon one of the two last subjects to commence
discussions upon.^ The Latins agreed to discuss upon
purgatory.
In the fifth sitting (June 4) Cardinal Julian gave the
following definition of the Latin doctrine on purgatory :
— ^' From the time of the Apostles,'^ he said, ''the Church
of Home has taught, that the souls departed firom this
world, pure and free from every taint, — namely, the
souls of saints, — immediately enter the regions of bliss.
The souls of those who after their baptism have sinned,
but have afterwards sincerely repented and confessed
their sins, though unable to perform the epitimia laid
upon them by their spiritual father, or bring forth fruits
of repentance sufficient to atone for their sins, these
souls are purified by the fire of purgatory, some sooner,
others slower, according to their sins ; and then, after
their purification, depart for the land of eternal bliss.
The prayers of the priest, liturgies, and deeds of charity
conduce much to their purification. The souls of those
> Syr. V. 7, 8. Synod. Flor. p. 30.
48 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
dead in mortal sin, or in original sin, go straight to
punishment.^
The Greeks demanded a written exposition of this
doctrine. When they received it, Mark of Ephesus and
Bessarion of Nice each wrote their remarks on it, which
afterwards served as a general answer to the doctrine of
the Latins.^
When giving in this answer (June 14th), Bessarion
explained the difference of the Greek and Latin doc-
trine on this subject. The Latins, he said, allow that
now, and until the day of the last judgment, de-
parted souls are purified by fire, and are thus liberated
from their sins ; so that, he who has sinned the most
will be a longer time undergoing purification, whereas
he whose sins are less will be absolved the sooner, with
the aid of the Church ; but in the future life they allow
the eternal, and not the purgatorial fire. Thus the
Latins receive both the temporal and the eternal fire,
and call the first the purgatorial fire. On the other
hand, the Greeks teach of one eternal fire alone, under-
standing that the temporal punishment of sinful souls
consists in that they for a time depart into a place of
iSyr.v. 13. Synod.. Flop. p. 30.
2 Syr. V. 13. The contents of Mark's answer, not published in Greek,
are mentioned by Le Q.uien in one of his treatises, preceding the works of
S. John Damascene, edited by him. Dissert. Damas. v. p. 65, et seq.
Syropulus, relating the circumstances touching this dispute, refers his
readers to the acts and notes of the Council about purgatory (xpaucruch
vvofivfifiaTa irepl rod vvpyaroplov, Syr. V. 5) ; but these are not published
separately, and are not even to be found in the Greek manuscripts. The
answer of the Greek Fathers to the question on purgatory, given on
the 14th of June, 1438, (not to the Basle, but the Florentine Council,)
is mentioned in the book of Martin Eruze : Turcogreecia, p. 186.
PURGATORY. 49
darkness and sorrow, are punished by being deprived of
the Divine light, and are purified — that is, liberated
from this place of darkness and woe — by means of
prayers, the Holy Eucharist, and deeds of charity, and
not by fire. The Greeks also believe, that until the
union of the souls to the bodies, as the souls of sin-
ners do not suffer full punishment, so also those of the
saints do not enjoy entire bliss. But the Latins, agree-
ing with the Greeks in the first point, do not allow the
last one, affirming that the souls of saints have already
received their full heavenly reward.^
In the following sitting the Latins presented a de-
fence of their doctrine on purgatory. As much as can
be concluded from the answer given by the Greeks to it,
they tried to prove their doctrine by the words of
2 Mac. xii. 42, 46, where it is said that Judas Macca-
bseus '^sent to Jerusalem to offer a sin offering," re-
marking at the same time ^^ that it was an holy and
good thought. Whereupon he made a reconciliation
for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin."
They also quoted the words of Jesus Christ, '^ Whoso-
ever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be
forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the
world to come." (S. Matt. xii. 32.) But their espe-
cial defence was founded on the words of the Apostle
S. Paul (1 Cor. iii. 11, 15) : " For other foundation
can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus
Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation
gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble ; every
man^s work shall be made manifest : for the day shall
declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire ; and the
^ Synod. Flop. pp. 33, 35.
D
50 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. If
any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon,
he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be
burned, he shall suffer loss : but he himself shall be
saved, yet so as by fire." Different extracts were also
made by the Latins from the works of the Eastern
Fathers — Basil the Great, Epiphanius of Cyprus, John
Damascene, Dionysius the Areopagite, Theodoret, Gre-
gory of Nyssa ; and the Western — Augustine, Ambrose,
and Gregory the Great. They did not also forget to
quote the authority of the Church of Rome in de«
fence of their doctrine, and to make use of their usual
sophistries.
To all this the Orthodox party gave a clear and satis-
factory answer.^ They remarked, that the words quoted
^ The answer of the Gbeeks is usually thought to be the work
entitled, vepl rod Ko^aprripiov irvphs $ifi\iov €v, edited together with
the works of Nilus Oavasilas and the monk Barlaam, without the
author's name. (Nili Archiep. Thessalon. de primatu Fapse, edit.
Salmasii, HanoY. 1603.) As the name of the writer of this answer
is not mentioned, it is sometimes referred to NUus Cavasilas and Hie
monk Barlaam, though the manuscripts give no reason for doing so.
(See Fabric. Bibl. Gtrsdc, Ed. HarL t. xi. p. 384 and 678.) From the
work itself it is evident that it was written (a) not in the name of one
person, but many persons, who had undertaken so long a journey, iffu^
ir6vov xnroffraffi Rwrh, r^v fxaucphy Ta^rrjv airo^rifxlay roffovrov ; (/8) that it
was written to persons, who had busied themselves about the arrival of
the Greeks to the Council ; hfitv re rSaoy 8* vvlp ttjs vpoKcifiiirris "^/jl&v
ovveKc^ffeiTBcu trpoKarafiouvoviMtvois (nrovSijs ; (7) that it was written at
the very commencement of the Council discussions, before other ques-
tions were settled. This is the reason why the persons who composed
this work tiy to give a peaceful solution not only of this question but,
if possible, of all the other ones, obx iirl rod vpoKcifiivov vvvX to6tov
(TiriifjiaTOSf &KKk icol ^irl irdvrotv tffus rSov itXKav. *A\X* iKclywv fitp
ftviKd fi€\€i &€^ Kot fi€\'fiff€i .... (5) that it was written in reply to
THE LATINS ON PURGATORY. 51
from the book of Maccabees^ and our Saviour's words,
can only prove that some sins will be forgiven after
death; but whether by means of punishment by fire,
or by other means, nothing was known for certain.
Besides, what has forgiveness of sins to do with pun-
ishment by fire and tortures ? Only one of these two
things can happen : either punishment or forgiveness,
and not both at once.
In explanation of the Apostle's words, they quoted
the commentary of S. John Chrysostom, who, using the
word fire, gives it the meaning of an eternal, and not
temporary, purgatorial fire; explains the words wood,
hay, stubble, in the sense of bad deeds, as food for the
eternal fire ; the word day, as meaning the day of the
the defence {h.voKoyiav) presented of the Rombh doctrine on purgatory.
All these circumstances direct our attention to the dispute on purgatory
which took place in Ferrara, and not to any other one known to us.
The writer of the History of the Florentine Council, — Dorotheus of
Mitylene, remarks, that the Latins, in their second answer, adduced
many testimonies from the saints, examples and arguments, using
also the Apostle's words for this purpose, — taved^ yet so as by fire.
Synod. Flor. pp. 35, 36. All this found place in the defence also, in
imswer to which the Latins presented the work we have been examining.
Syropulus says that it was Mark of Ephesus who wrote the answer to
the Latin defence, v. 15. But this answer, as weU as the first one, is
not published. Le Quien, examining both these answers in his above-
mentioned dissertation, quotes the principal ideas contained in this
second answer of Mark. The same ideas, and in the same order, are
also to be found in the work " On Purgatorial Fire," as well as the
words quoted by IJe Quien from Mark's second answer, t( yhp Koivhv
iul>4(r€i Tc Kcd Ka$dp(r€i 8(a Tvphs ko^ Ko\d(r€us. Dissert. Damasc. v.
pp. 8, 9, 66, 67. All these arguments aUow us to conclude that the
work on purgatorial fire was either entirely or principally composed by
Siark of Ephesus, and that it was brought forward by the G-reeks in
answer to the Latin defence of the doctrine on purgatory.
d2
52 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
last judgment ; and the words saved yet so as hy fire, as
meaning the preservation and continuance of the sin-
ner's existence while suflering punishment. Keeping
to this explanation, they reject the other explanation
given by S. Augustine, founded on the words shall be
saved, which he understood in the sense of bliss, and
consequently gave quite another meaning to all this
quotation. " It is very right to suppose/' wrote the
Orthodox teachers, " that the Greeks should understand
Greek words better than foreigners. Consequently, if
we cannot prove that any one of those saints, who spoke
the Greek language, explains the Apostle's words,
written in Greek, in a sense different to that given by
the blessed John, then surely we must agree with the
majority of these Church celebrities." The expressions
(TcjoiYivai, a-aXfio-ioLiy and (rcoTrjpiot, used by heathen writers,
mean in our language continuance, existence {hufAsvetv,
elvai.) The very idea of the Apostle's words shows
this. As fire naturally destroys, whereas those who are
doomed to eternal fire are not destroyed, the Apostle
says that they continue in fire, preserving and con-
tinuing their existence, though at the same time they
are being burned by fire. To prove the truth of such
an explanation of these words by the Apostle, (ver. 11,
15,) they make the following remarks : The Apostle
divides all that is built upon the proposed foundation
into two parts, never even hinting of any third, middle
part. By ffold, silver, stones, he means virtues ; by hay,
wood, stubble, that which is contrary to virtue, i. e., bad
works. ^'Your doctrine," they continued to tell the
Latins, ^' would perhaps have had some foundation
if he (the Apostle) had divided bad works into two
'' SAVED, YET SO AS BY FIRE." 53
kinds, and had said that one kind is purified by God,
and the other worthy of eternal punishment. But
he made no such division; simply naming the works
entitling man to eternal bliss, i.e., virtues, and those
meriting eternal punishment, i.e., sins. After which he
says, ^ Every man^s work shall be made manifest/ and
shows when this will happen, pointing to that last
day, when God will render unto all according to their
merits: ^For the day,' he says, ^ shall declare it, be-
cause it shall be revealed by fire.' Evidently, this is
the day of the second coming of Christ, the coming
age, the day so called in a particular sense, or as op-
posed to the present life, which is but night. This is
the day when He will come in glory, and a fiery stream
shall precede Him. (Dan. vii. 10; Ps. 1. 3; xcvii.
3; 2 S. Pet. iii. 12, 15.) All this shows us that
S. Paul speaks here of the last day, and of the eternal
fire prepared for sinners. ^ This fire,' says he, * shall
try every man's work of what sort it is,' enlightening
some works, and burning others with the workers. But
when the evil deed will be destroyed by fire, the evil
doers will not be destroyed also, but will continue their
existence in the fire, and sufler eternally. Whereas
then the Apostle does not divide sins here into mortal
and venial, but deeds in general into good and bad;
whereas the time of this event is referred by him to
the final day, as by the Apostle Peter also ; whereas,
again, he attributes to the fire the power of destroying
all evil actions, but not the doers ; it becomes evident
that the Apostle Paul does not speak of purgatorial fire,
which, even in your opinion, extends not over all evil
actions, but over some of the minor sins. But these
54 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
words also, * If any man^s work shall be burned, he
shall suffer loss/ (5>ijEAiood^(rgT«i, i. e., shall lose,) shows
that the Apostle speaks of the eternal tortures ; they
are deprived of the Divine light : whereas this cannot be
spoken of those purified, as you say ; for they not only
do not lose anything, but even acquire a great deal, by
being freed from evil, and clothed in purity and can-
dour."
In answer to the words quoted by the Latins from
Basil the Great (in his prayer for Pentecost), Epipha-
nius, John Damascene, and Dionysius the Areopagite, —
the defenders of the orthodox doctrine remarked, that
these quotations did not prove anything to the advan-
tage of the Church of Rome. They could not even find
the testimony of Theodoret adduced by the Latins.
'^ Only one Father remains," they continued, ^' Gregory
the blessed priest of Nyssa, who, apparently, speaks
more to your advantage than any of the other Fathers.
Preserving all the respect due to this Father, we cannot
refrain from noticing, that he was but a mortal man,
and man, however great a degree of holiness he may
attain, is very apt to err, especially on such subjects,
which have not been examined before or determined
upon in a general Council by the Fathers." The ortho-
dox teachers, when speaking of Gregory, more than once
restrict their words by the expression : ^^ if such was his
idea" and conclude their discussion upon Gregory with
the following words : '^ we must view the general doctrine
of the Church, and take the Holy Scripture as a rule for
ourselves, nor paying attention to what each has written in
his private capacity (i8/a) ."
The Eastern teachers said, concerning the testimonies
THE GREEKS AGAINST PURGATORY. 55
of the Western Fathers, that they were rather ignorant
of them, not having any translation in Greek, and tried
to excuse them by the circumstances under which they
wrote, their misunderstanding the Apostle's words (1 Cor.
iii. 11, 15), the diflBculty of drawing a general conclusion
from many circumstances (founded on visions), &c.
As regards the weight of the opinion of the Church
of Rome pointed to by the Latins, it was found by the
Greeks to be inconsistent with the subject then in hand.
Lastly, to the Latin sophistries, they opposed the
more valid conclusions from the principles of the doc-
trine of Christ, from many works of the Fathers, from
the parable of Lajsarus, where mention is made of Abra-
ham's bosom, — the place of bliss, — and of hell the place
of punishment ; and nothing is said of any intermediate
place for temporal punishments.
The Greek answer was evidently intended to show the
Latins the unsoundness of their newly-invented doc-
trine on the one side, and the steadfastness of the or-
thodox party in the faith handed down to them by the
Apostles and the holy Fathers, on the other. In the
course of the disputes the principal question branched
off into so many light and abstract questions, that as a
matter of course the solution of the chief one became
still more difiBcult. The Latins for instance asked —
where and how the angels fly ? what was the substance
of hell fire ? The last question met with the following
answer from Jagaris, the imperial officer : ^' the querist
will get a satisfactory solution to his question, when he
experiences the nature of that fire himself.''^
The question on purgatory not being agreed upon,
1 Syp. V. 16, 18 J Syn. Flor. p. 35, 37.
56 HISTORY OV THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
another one was proposed — that about the blissful state
of the righteous, alluded to by Bessarion in his treatise
on the difference of the doctrines of both Churches on
the condition of the departed souls. It was asked :
whether the saints^ departed &om this life, attained
entire bliss or not? Before discussing this question,
the Greeks found it necessary to have a private confer-
ence with the other members of the Council. With
this intention all the members assembled in the Patri-
arch's cell (July 15,) and read over different testimonies
of the Fathers ; the Emperor bade them collect their
votes. Some gave a negative answer to the question^
founding it on the Apostle's words, (Heb. xi. 39,) others
gave a positive answer. The next day, after a few dis-
putes, the whole Council of Greek Bishops unanimously
agreed, that though the souls of the saints, as souls, are
already in the enjoyment of bliss, stiQ when, at the
general resurrection they will join their bodies, then
their bliss will be greater; that then they will be en-
lightened like the sun.^ This was their last answer to
the Latin doctrine on the state of souls after death.
What then were the fruits of these tedious discus-
sions ? Did they conduce in any manner to the solu-
tion of the principal question concerning the union of
Churches ? No ! The Latin theologians could neither
find firm proofs for their opinions, nor would they give
them up. The Greeks again would not receive a doc-
trine not founded on any good proofs, nor could they
incline the Latins to receive the orthodox doctrine.
To the misfortune of the Greeks, their own party also
became divided, a circumstance which prognosticated
1 Synod. Flop. 37—39.
MARK AND BESSABION. 57
nothing good. Bessarion^ generally speakings was not
very earnest in the defence of the orthodox cause^ and
if he did dispute with the Latins now and then, it was
only to show oflf his powers of speech.^ But meeting
with a rival in Mark of Ephesus,^ he became still more
passive in the cause of orthodoxy, and began to nourish
a feeling of hatred towards Mark. Obliged to answer
the Latins together with bim, he usually left Mark to
refiite their various objections alone. It was in vain,
that many prudent persons tried to reconcile Bessarion
to Mark at the very commencement of the former^s
enmity to the latter, even calling to their aid the au-
thority of the Patriarch, who by his meek reproofs might
have ended the quarrel. The invalid Joseph would on
no account meddle in this aflfair.^ Then again the cun-
ning Gregory, offended that Mark did not find him wor-
thy of being the vicar of the Patriarch of Alexandria,*
did his utmost to set Bessarion against Mark. Ap-
parently he esteemed Mark, sat down lower than he did
in the Council,^ voted after him, notwithstanding the
privileges of a higher patriarchal throne were on his
side ; when his opinion was the same as MarVs, he never
spoke of himself, but always said : " I am of the same
opinion as the holy Metropolitan of Ephesus."^ But
^ It is worthy of notice, that when the Ghreeks, seeing the obstinate
opposition of the Latins to the truth, wished to terminate all the dis-
cussions, Bessarion alone insisted that they should be continued, the
subject alone being changed. ** We can still say many nice things," were
his words. (iroM^ koI ica\^.) Syr. yii. 6.
' Mark was commissioned to write the Latins an answer about pur-
gatory, and not Bessarion ; but Bessarion did nevertheless give in his
answer also.
* Syr. V. 14—17. * Syr. iv. 29. « Syr. iv. 32. « Syr. Til. 10.
d3
58 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
this was sheer hypocrisy. In the presence of Bessarion
and the Emperor, he placed Mark lower than the Arch-
bishop of Nicaea,^ and found fault with everything he
said, not caring about this self-contradiction.^
Thus it was, that as soon as the Greeks commenced
discussions, there arose men who, separating from the
true members of the Eastern Church, sacrificed the ad-
vantages of the Church to their own passions and ad-
vantages.
The disputes ended. More than three months had
already elapsed since the opening of the Council. The
Greeks remaining inactive, and suffering want in every-
thing,3 began to feel dull and sorry that they had left
their homes.
The Emperor, fearing that the discontented would
prematurely leave the Council, ordered the city governor
not to let any of the Greeks leave the town, nor to give
any one passports without his permission and signature.
He himself, having shut up the Greeks in Ferrara,
settled in a monastery not far from the town, and spent
his time in the field, hunting, as if he were even loth to
remind himself of a business which had called him away
from his Empire.*
^ Syr. V. 14. 2 gyj.^ y^ 15^
3 The first pay-day of the Q-reeks was the 2nd of April. 691 florins
were given them on one month's account, whereas their pay was due for
a month and a half. Syr. iv. 28. On the second pay-day (May 12)
they received 689 florins (Syr. v. 9) ; on the third day (June 30th) 689
florins ; — on Oct. 21, 1218 florins for two months. The fifth and last
pay-day was at Ferrara, Jan. 12th, 1439, when 2412 florins were paid
for four months (Syr. vii. 14). Thus, three months and twenty days
elapsed between the third and fourth pay-day, and as much between the
fourth and fifth.
* Syr. vi. 1, 2.
ISIDORE OF RUSSIA. 59
As soon as the time fixed upon for the opening of the
solemn sessions of the Council had arrived^ the Greeks
asked the Emperor to return to town and make some
arrangements about the Council. The Emperor an-
swered^ that he would not even think of opening a
Council^ which was to be an (Ecumenical one^ without
the ambassadors of the Western monarchs^ and a more
numerous assembly of Sishops than the present one.
Sut the members of the Council instead of increasing
only diminished in number. Many fell victims to a
frightftd epidemic; others, from fear, retired to their
homes; so that at the commencement of the solemn
session, out of eleven Cardinals only five remained, and
out of one hundred and fifty Bishops only fifty were
present. It was at this time that the Greeks received a
proof of Divine protection. None of them suffered
from the epidemic.^
One addition only was made to the Council in the
person of Isidore, Metropolitan of Russia, who arrived
on the 18th of August. He had returned to Russia
after the conclusion of the treaty between the Em-
peror and the Council of Basle (in the end of 1436).
With him was to have returned Jonah, Bishop of
B/iazan, sent to Greece to be ordained Metropolitan.
Arriving at Moscow, Isidore was received by the Grand
Duke Vasili Vasilievitch with all due honour. But
soon after his arrival, he began telling the Grand Duke
that the Greek Church intended to unite with the
Church of Biome, that a Council was convened by the
Emperor and the Pope with this object in view, — to be
followed by the solemn union of the East and West, —
» Syr. vi. 3.
60 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
and that it was very necessary that a representative of
the Russian Church should take part in the Council.
The Grand Duke answered, " Our fathers and grand-
fathers would not even listen to an union of the Greek
and Roman laws; I myself do not wish it.^' Isidore
urged him to consent, pleading his oath given to the
Patriarch of coming to the Council. " We do not com-
mand thee to join the Council in the Latin land," said
the Grand Duke at last, " but thou listest not, and wilt
go. Remember then the purity of our faith, and bring
it back with thee." Isidore swore to remain true to
Orthodoxy, and (on Sep. 8, 1437) left Moscow with
Abram, Bishop of Suzdal, Vassian the Archimandrite,
the Priest Simeon, and other members of the clergy and
laity, in all a hundred. On quitting Russia, Isidore very
soon evinced a violent inclination to side with the Latins.
Received in Livonia by the Bishop of Dorpat, and the
Orthodox Clergy, he first saluted the Latin cross and
only afterwards kissed the holy Russian icons. The
companions of Isidore were horror-struck, and from
that very moment lost all their confidence in him.^
CHAPTER V.
The solemn Sessions op the Council. Disputes on the Latin
ADDITION TO THE CbEED.
Eugenius was still expecting the arrival of his legate
from France. And when he did arrive, the news were
^ History of the Bussian Empire by Karamzin. Emerling's ed. t. y.
pp. 161—165.
PBEPABATION8 FOB THE OPENING. 61
anything but favourable. Prance had secured herself
from the Pope^s influence by means of the pragmatic
sanction (July 7, 1438) founded on the decrees of the
Council of Basle ; at the same time Charles VII., King
of Prance, prohibited his Bishops from going to Per-
rara.^ At this juncture the Pope commenced press-
ing the Greeks to begin the formal discussions on the
peace of the Churches. " You have been already seven
months in Italy/^ he said to them, ^^ and during that
time you have signed but one paper — that announcing
the opening of the Council.^^^ At length the Emperor
returned to town, and after several private interviews
with the Pope determined on opening the State Session
of the Council on the 8th of October.
In the preliminary discussions between the Greeks it
was determined to settle all disputes not by the majority
of votes, which could always be more numerous in the
Latin party than in the Greek one, but by the general
assent of one or the other side. Otherwise — said the
Greeks — the Latins will have more than two hundred
votes against our thirty. It is necessary that the votes
of one party, irrespectively of their number, should,
when taken altogether, have as much force as the force
of the opposite party^s votes. Those who shall leave the
Greeks and join the Latins, and vice vers&, are to be
strictly punished.^
Then, on calling together the six eldest Metropolitans,
the Chartophylax and Ecclesiarch, two hegumens, with
a hieromonach, and three learned Greeks, — Scholarius,
^ * Weissenberg, S . 379. Syropulus himself makes mention of this
embassy, and the Pope's disappointment in his views on France.
' Syr. vi 5. ^ Syr. yi. 9, 10.
62 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
Gemistes, and Amirutius, — the Emperor demanded their
opinion as to what subject should open the discus-
sions on the Procession of the Holy Ghost? Was
it better to begin by discussing whether the doctrine of
the Western Church on the procession of the Holy
Ghost is Orthodox ? Or, whether she had the right of
making any addition to the Symbol, even if it had been
a correct one ? These two questions gave rise to two
different opinions of the members present. Mark of
Ephesus, and Gemistes, the philosopher, chose the latter
question, and most of the others joined them. Bessarion
of Nicaea, Scholaiius and Amirutius, demanded that the
dogma itself should be discussed upon before anything
else. The Emperor, joining the majority, settled that
the disputes with the Latins should commence with the
addition to the Symbol.^
Lastly, the Emperor gave notice that, on consulting
with the Cardinals, he had arranged that there should
always be three Council sittings in the week; ajad that
in case of the Emperor, Patriarch, or any of those ap-
pointed to attend the sitting, being absent, the sitting
itself should not be put off to another day. The place
of the absent member was to be occupied by the next
one in order. Every sitting was to commence an hour
and a half after sunrise, and continue till the sixth hour
of the day. The Greeks gave their consent to these
arrangements, signing their names to them, and de-
manded the right of proposing questions to the Latins.^
The Greek party appointed the following persons to
take part in the Council sitting : — the Metropolitans of
Ephesus and Russia, the Archbishop of Nicaea, and with
1 Syr. yi. 12. * Syr. vi. 13.
GREEK AND LATIN CHAMPIONS. 63
them Gemistes the philosopher^ the Chartophylax and
Skeuophylax.^ But in reality all the discussions with
the Latins were entrusted by the Emperor to the Me-
tropolitan of Ephesus, and the Archbishop of Nicsea, —
the civil officers were forbidden to take any part in the
Council affairs. The Latins, for their part, chose the
Cardinals Julian Caesarini and Nicholas Albergati ; the
Bishops — Andrew of Rhodes, John of Forli, and two
Doctors of Divinity — ^monks; one of whom, John, a
provincial of the Dominican Order, took a special part
in the Council discussions.^ The Cardinals announced
the Pope^s will, that all the Council sittings should take
place in his palace chapel, under the plea that it was
not proper for the Pope and a few Bishops to make
their way to the Cathedral Church through a crowd of
people.3
In all, fifteen sittings were held in Ferrara.* Two
^ Syropulus, the Ecclesiarch, was appointed one of the speakers on
the Ghreek side, but at his urgent request was allowed to retire. Sjr.
vi. 13.
2 Syr. vi. 13, Syn. Flor. pp. 43, 44. See also Oudini Comment, de
Scriptor. Eccles. t. iii. p. 2342, about John de Monte Nigro, the cele-
brated divine of his time and Provincial of Lombardy. There his
speeches are enumerated, pronounced by him at the Ooimcil of Florence,
in the Greek translation.
' Syr. vi. 14. Dorotheus of Mitylene gives us another reason why
the Pope refused to open the Council in the former Cathedral Church,
viz., the Pope was then ill with the gout. Syn. Flor. p. 41.
* Here Syropulus and Dorotheus disagree a Uttle with regard to the
time and number of the Council sittings, and also as regards the way
affidrs were conducted in the sittings. Syropulus reckons that two sittings
had ti^en place before Mark of Ephesus began reading the Council de-
crees on the Symbol of Faith ; Dorotheus counts four sittings. Syro-
pulus says that the first meeting took place on the 6th of October,
the second on the 13th of the same month ; whereas, according to
64 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OP FLORENCE.
months passed away in disputes^ ending just like the
former ones, in nothing at all. Both sides retained
their respective opinions. The only advantage of the
Greeks was, that they defended the truth.
On the appointed day the Emperor and all the Bishops
Dorotheus' reckoning, the first one took place on the 8th ; the second
on the 11th ; the third and fourth on the 14th and 15th of October.
Syropulus again says, that the Council was opened by the speech of the
Latin Bishop — Andrew, of Rhodes ; Dorotheus refers this speech to
the Ghreek Archbishop — ^Bessarion, of Nicsea ; and says, that Andrew's
speech was made at the second sitting. Syropulus says that Mark of
Ephesus also made an introductory speech during the first sitting;
Dorotheus refers this speech to the third sitting. And then, at the
same time, they agree with each other in saying, that the reading of the
Council acts was begun by Mark, on the 16th of October, the day of the
third sitting, according to Syropulus, and the fifth with Dorotheus.
Andrew's answer to this is referred by Syropulus to the three following
sittings : fourth, fifth, and sixth ; and by Dorotheus only to the sixth
and seyenth, and with the same dates as are fixed for the two last sit-
tings by Syropulus. We find no other difference in the narratives of
Syropulus and Dorotheus, except in the number of sittings j Syropulus*
seventh sitting corresponds to Dorotheus' eighth one, the eighth to the
ninth, and so on. Then, again, the eleventh sitting, according to Syro-
pulus, took place on the 18th of November, and Dorotheus' correspond-
ing twelfth one on the 15th of that month. What is the reason of their
disagreeing with each other ? Most likely it must be sought for in the
inaccuracy and uncorrectness of the Council Notes, made use of by both
the writers, as is to be seen fi'om their both mentioning the Council
speeches in one and the same expressions. In order to fix upon the
time of the sittings, we can have recourse to the note about their time
and number, preserved in our Bussian memoirs of the 8th Council,
most likely written by one of Isidore's Russian companions. Antiq.
Biblioth. ed. 2, t. vi. pp. 37, 38. The Bussian writer counts one sit-
ting less than Syropulus, because he does not count the sftting, shown by
Syropulus as the fourth. In the other notes on the time of the sittings
he agrees with Syropulus, except as regards the time of the first sitting,
which he, as does also Dorotheus, fixes on the 8th of October.
FIBST SESSION. 65
assembled in the Papal. palace^ which was already sur-
rounded by crowds of people. The Pope also soon made
his appearance. The seats for the members of the
Council were arranged just as they were before in the
Church of S. George. In the centre of the Chapel,
between the Emperor and Pope, two benches were occu-
pied by the twelve Greek and Latin speakers, who sat
opposite to each other. By the side of the speakers
stood the Greek and Latin reporters and translators.
Bessarion opened the meeting with a speech on the
importance of peace between the Churches. In this
speech he urged the Council not to spare any means for
bringing the great enterprise to a successful end, at the
same time supplicating the aid of the Holy Trinity
for those assembled to investigate the truth, and for
peace between the two separated parts of Christ^s one
fold. He praised the Pope, Emperor, Patriarch and all
present at the Council, for their sincere wish and firm
resolution of reinstating peace in the Church, and
begged the Pope and the Emperor to honour the Coun-
cil with their constant aid and furtherance of its views.
A similar speech was also made by the Latin Bishop
Andrew of Rhodes.^
After these preliminary speeches, Mark of Ephesus
broached the chief subject of the Council "discussions.
" Love was bequeathed by our Lord Jesus Christ,^^ he
said, '^ to His disciples, and His peace He left them :
but the Church of Home began to neglect the com-
mandment of love, and broke the peace. At present
that same Church, by assembling this Council, evinces
a desire of reinstating the peace, but this she can only
^ Syn. Flor. pp. 44 — 49.
68 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
accomplish by rejecting the opinion which has been and
is the cause of disagreement between the Churches ;
and the present Council will then meet with success^
when it agrees with the Canons of the former (Ecu-
menical Councils. With this object in view, Mark then
demanded, that the Canons of those Councils touching
the subjects of the present disputes should be read in
the Council before anything else.^^^
This demand was just ; but the Latins of course could
not accede to it, as such a step would more certainly
have exposed the Church of Rome. This was the very
reason why they contradicted Mark then, and afterwards
in a private meeting did their utmost to prevent the
Greeks furthering Mark^s demand. Two Cardinals,
Julian and Nicholas, with several Bishops, came to the
Patriarch^s cell, and th^re in the presence of the Em-
peror and many Greek Bishops, urged the Greeks
to delay the reading of the Canons, or at least to
change the solemn reading of the Canons in the Council
into a private investigation of them.^ But neither
of their propositions received the consent of the Greeks.
The Latins were obliged to give in, though at the
same time they solemnly declared, that this reading
would be for the Greeks alone, and that it had not re-
ceived the general consent of the members.^ Every-
^ Syr. Ti. 14 ; Syn. Flor. pp. 60—75.
' Syr. vi. 18 j Syn. Flop. p. 84. Dorotheus says, that the meeting in
the Patriarch's apartments took place on the 15th of October, and Syio-
pulus on the 14th of that month.
3 * Pii/ayvacrOiyrooffav iu rats vfitripius (Tvffrdxreffiyf &s 6fi4r€pov BiKoioVf
ou fiiiy &s airb koiv^s ^ r)fi€T4pas OcX-fitretcSt were John's words, when the
Fathers had assembled to witness the reading of the Council Canons.
Syn. Flor. p. 36.
THE CANONS ABE BEAD. 67
thing was done to lessen the solemnity of that sittings
in which the reading was to take place. The people
were not allowed to enter the Cathedral in so great a
number as before. The Gospel on the desk was closed,
the statues of the Apostles were placed with their faces
downwards, and no candles were lit before them.^
On the appointed day (16th of October) the books
containing the acts of the (Ecumenical Councils were
brought into the Council. The referendarius under
Mark^s guidance read one by one the definitions of the
Councils and Fathers on the Symbol of Faith. Ni-
cholas Secundini translated them into Latin. Mark
of Ephesus now and then interrupted the readings by
his remarks.
''Let us begin/^ said Mark, "with the acts of the
Third (Ecumenical Council, so famed for its symbol of
the Nicene Fathers, and by the Canon of the Ephesine
Fathers themselves on the preservation of the Symbol
in its original condition.^^ Thus, the seventh Canon of
the Council of Ephesus and the exposition of faith
drawn up at the First (Ecumenical Council were read,
showing that the Church strictly prohibited the use
of any other creeds, after the Nicene, threatening in
case of disobedience — Bishops with being deposed, and
the laity with excommunication. When these Canons
were read, Mark said: "The Fathers of the Council
having passed this Canon, have by their own example
shown a great respect for the Nicene Creed, for they
would not allow the addition of Theotocos, a name so
necessary in the economy of our salvation. In the
Canon of the Council of Ephesus, plain reference is
1 Syr. vi. 19.
1
68 HISTORY OP THE COUNCIL OP FLORENCE.
made to the Nicene, and now the Niceno-Constantmo-
politan Creed, in which the dogma of the procession of
the Holy Ghost is more developed. To explain this,
Mark said, that the Fathers of Ephesus receive both
Creeds as one, and call it the Nicene Creed from respect
to the Council which gave rise to it, just in the same
manner as the following Councils also called it the Ni-
cene Creed. Lastly, to explain the Ephesine Canon,
and confirm all in the conviction, that this Canon pro-
hibits not only the drawing up of any other Creeds, but
also any explanation whatever of the Nicene Creed by
means of any addition, Mark quoted the words of S.
Cyril of Alexandria, who presided over the Council of
Ephesus, contained in his epistle to John of Antioch.
In this epistle S. Cyril forbids any change whatsoever
in the Symbol, be it even in a word, or syllable.^ This
epistle, Mark continued, was read with many other
epistles at the Fourth (Ecumenical Council, which re-
ceived and confirmed it.
Then was read the decree of the Fourth (Ecumenical
Council of Chalcedon (in the 5th act), commanding all to
receive the Nicene Creed and Niceno-Constantinopolitan
Creeds as one. " For the Fathers of this Council,"
added Mark, " on reading both these Creeds, said :
This holy Creed is sufficient for the full knowledge of
the truth, for it contains in itself the full doctrine on
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.^^^
1 " We prohibit," S. Cyril wrote, " any change whatever in the Greed
of Faith drawn up by the holy Nicene Fathers. We do not allow our-
selves, or any one else to change or omit one word or syllable in that
Creed." Binii Concil. t. i. par. 2, p. 430.
2 Sinii Concil. t. xi. par. L. 252.
CANONS CONTINUED. 69
Then followed the reading of the exhortation of John,
Patriarch of Constantinople, to the people, contained
in the acts of the Council of Constantinople (518), in
which the Patriarch exhorts all to keep to theNiceno-Con-
stantinopolitan Creed steadfastly and unerringly.^ The
epistle of Eutychius, Patriarch of Constantinople to Pope
Vigilius, taken from the acts of the Fifth (Ecumenical
Council, was also read. In this epistle the Patriarch
testifies, that he receives all the definitions made by the
four (Ecumenical Councils, and truly preserves that faith
which the holy Fathers explained and confirmed at those
Councils.^
The Canon of the Sixth (Ecumenical Council was
also read confirming the Creed drawn up by the two
first Councils, and received as a rule of faith by the
three following ones.^ After that extracts were made
from the two epistles of Pope Agatho to the Greek
Emperor, contained in the same acts of the Sixth
Council. In these epistles the Pope says, that the
Church of Rome upholds* the faith bequeathed by the
five (Ecumenical Councils, and takes great care, that
all defined by the Canons should remain unchanged,
1 "We must keep," said the Patriarch, " to the holy Creed drawn up
by the Council of Nice by the grace of the Holy Ghost, approved of
by the Council of Constantinople, and confirmed by that of Chalcedon."
Bimi ConciL t. ii. par. 1. p. 732. In Mark's speech it is said, that this
was taken from the acts of the fifth (Ecumenical CounciL
2 " We always kept," says Eutychius, " and do keep the fidth ex-
pluned by the Fathers present at the four Councils, and follow those
Councils in ereiything." This epistle is adduced in Mark's speech firom
Pope Vigilius, as it is all contained in the Pope's epistle, and is ap-
proved of by him. Binii Concil. t. xi. par.* 2. p. 48.
' Syn. Sext. Act. xviii. ; Binii Concil. t. iii. par. 1, sect. 1. p. 182.
70 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
nothing added or taken away, and be kept inviolate both
in words and thoughts.^
In conclusion, the definition of the Seventh CEcu-
menical Council was read, in which the Niceno-Con-
stantinopolitan Creed is repeated. On reading the acts
of this Council it was remarked, that all present at the
Second (Ecumenical Council of Nice exclaimed, after
listening to this Creed : We all believe this ; we all
think alike. This is the faith of the Apostles, this is
the Orthodox faith. . . . Let him who receives not this
faith be excommunicated. ^
When this passage from the acts of the Seventh
(Ecumenical Council, containing the Symbol of faith,
was read, the Latins presented a parchment, in their
opinion, very old Greek^ copy of the acts of this Coun-
cil, where in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed it is
said, that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father
and the Son. With the exception of the addition to
the Creed, this copy, on being compared with another
copy then in the hands of the Greeks, was found to cor-
respond to it exactly. The Latins concluded from this
copy, that the Fathers of the Seventh (Ecumenical
Council read the Symbol of Faith with the Filioque
addition. Cardinal Julian also quoted some old histo-
rian, who as it were certifies, that the Fathers of the
^ Bin. ibid. p. 25. In another epistle Pope Agatho writes : " The
ApostoUc seat preserves the Catholic and ApostoUc fsiith. We believe
in God the Fatheb, and His Only-Begotten Son, and the Holy G-host,
the LoBD and Giver of Life, Who proceedeth from the Fatheb, Who
with the Fatheb and the Son is together worshipped and together glo-
rified." Bin. ibid. p. 46.
2 Bin. ibid. p. 685, 693. '
•* Syr. says : iWriviKws l^*"' ''^ vpcucTuch,
THE FILIOQUE. 71
Seventh (Ecumenical Council read the Symbol of Faith
with the addition^ but Julian did not mention this
historian^s name.i
It was then^ that Gemistes in short and plain terms
showed the Latins the erroneousness of their conclusion.
^ Some persons think that Julian referred to Martin, a Pole, Bishop
of Ghiesen, who says in his History, that the Second CounciL of Nice
decreed to admit the procession of the Holy Q-host from the Father
and the Son. (Zoemikoff, Tractatus de process. Spiritus S. 1774. par.
1. p. 199.) This Martin lived in the fourteenth century, whereas the
Council was held in the end of the eighth century : what force then can
such a testimony have, when it is contradicted hy many other copies in
which the Filioque clause does not appear ? Besides, many other argu-
ments can he adduced to prove, that the Creed was not touched or altered
at the Seventh (Ecumenical Council ; (a) how could an addition to the
Symbol be made, without any allusions being made of the reasons for
such an act, in the very acts of the Council ? (0) The Fathers of the
Seventh CEcumenical Council notice before they begin the reading of the
Creed, that they " do not alter anything, do not add or subtract any-
thing fix)m the doctrine of futh, and carefully preserve the Creed handed
down to them by the former Councils." (7) In the very Church of
Borne the Creed was read without the addition for a long time after the
Seventh (Ecumenical CounciL In this form (i.e. without the addition)
it was engraved by order of Pope Leo III. on silver tablets, in Greek
and Latin, as is seen from the testimony of Fhotius in his epistle to the
Bishop of Aquilea, and even the Latin writers : Anastasius, the Eoman
book-keeper, Peter Bamian, and others. (Zoemikoff, ibid. p. 391.)
The learned Latins avow themselves, that the Church of Borne allowed
the addition in the Creed, when read during the Liturgy, not earlier /
than the tenth or the beginning of the eleventh century. (Le Quien
Dissert. Damasc. i. p. 13, 15.) (8) The oldest Latin copies of the a^s
of the seventh (Ecumenical Council do not contain the addition to/the
Creed. In Peter Pitheus* library such a copy, taken from a tran^tion
made in the ninth century by Anastasius the librarian, was preserved,
but without the Filioque clause. PithsBus, Hist, controversise de pro-
cess. Spirit. S., Paris, 1609. See upon this subject Zoemikoff, pp. 198
— 202 : CTheophan. Procopowitz, Theologia Orthodoxa, t. i. p. 1072 —
1074. \
\
\
/
72 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
" If the testimonies of your copy and your historian
were just, or at least had been long ago known in the
Church of Rome/' said Gemistes, "then no doubt your
Thomas Aquinases and the Divines preceding would not
have made use of so many arguments to prove the va-
lidity of the addition. Instead of this, they might have
simply referred to the addition made to the Creed by
the Seventh (Ecumenical Council. But vour divines
are silent about this.^'^ Evidently the copy produced
by the Latins at the Council, was forged at the time
of the controversy between the Orthodox and Latin
Churches on the procession of the Holy Ghost.
On finishing the reading, Mark of Ephesus concluded
by saying : " Thus, the Greeks, obeying the decrees of
the Councils and the exhortations of the Fathers, and
mindful of their oath, cannot admit the addition to the
Creed to be a right and lawful one. Nevertheless they
are ready to listen to the proofs brought forward by the
Latins to attest the justness of their addition.^'
At the end of the sitting, many of the Latins them-
selves, especially the monks present at the Council, after
having heard the Council decrees, and Mark's explana-
tion of them, avowed that they had never heard any-
thing of the sort before, and that the Greeks teach more
correctly than the Latin theologians.^
Andrew of Rhodes answered to the arguments made
use of by Mark against the addition to the Creed. In
his lengthened speech during two or more sittings,^ he
» Syr. vi. 19 ; Syn. Flor. 85—117.
2 Syr. yi. 19 ; Syn. Flor. 114—115.
' Namely, during the sixth and seventh sittings according to Doro-
theus' reckoning, or the fourth, fifth and sixth as Syropulus has it.
Andrew's speech yide in Synod. Flor. p.- 136, 183.
FILIOQUE NOT AN ADDITION. 73
tried to prove, 1. That the words " and the Son " are
no addition, but simply an explanation of the words,
"Who proceedeth from the Pather,^^ contained in the
Nicaeo-Constantinopolitan Creed : 2. That such expla-
nations are in no way prohibited by the Canons of the
Councils : and 3. That the Church of Rome had a right of
making such an explanation and inserting it in the Creed.
To prove that the Latin addition is not an addition, hut
only an explanation, — ^the Bishop of Rhodes entered into
a preliminary discussion on the sense of the words " ad-
dition'^ and " explanation/' and then applied the results
of his disquisition to the subject in hand. " An addi-
tion,^' said he, "is the adding of something extra to
a subject; an explanation is the exposition of what is
within (intra) the subject only/' "The addition of
the ' Filioque' clause to the Creed," he continued, " is
only an explanation of what is said in the Nicseo-Con-
stantinopolitan Creed, viz., ^ Who proceedeth from' the
Father.'' In proof, Andrew quoted the words of S.
Cyril of Alexandria, which, in his opinion, admitted the
procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son likewise as
from the Father. But even if such an admission were
actually contained in S. Cyril's words,^ still it could not
* S. Cyril says (in Johann. Lib. 9, t. iv. p. 810,) " I will pray theFA-
THEB, and He shall give you another Comforter. (S. John xiy. 16.)
The 8as being a partaker of the essential goodness {iryaBay) of GtOD and
the Fatheb has also the Holy G-host, just in the same manner, as this
is understood of the Fatheb, — not as an addition or something extra (to
think BO would be silly and even insane) ; but like each of us, has His
Spirit in Himself which He brings out from Himself. This is why our
Sayioub breathed Him forth corporeally, showing by this, that as the
breathing comes forth from the mouth of a man corporeally, so also is
the Spirit (rh i^ ain-ov) breathed forth from the Divine essence in a
manner worthy of Qgd** These words show, (1.) that the Holy Ghost
E
74 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
prove that the words : '^ and from the Son'' are only an
explanation of the words — Who proceedeth .... As
little proof of this idea is contained in S. Basil the
Great^s words, quoted by Andrew in favour of the Latin
doctrine, for Andrew concluded firom them, that it was
impossible to represent the Father without implying
the Son and the Holy Ghost. ^
No better arguments could the Latinized Greek find.
In defence of his assertion, that the addition of expla"
natory expressions to the Creed is no where prohibited^
Andrew made use of many arguments, which had no
^th regard to the Son is not aiiTthmg strange to Him, but is essen-
tially united to Him, being of one and the same essence with TTiTw .
(2.) that proceeding from the Divine essence. He is poured forth by
the Son. Not a word, though, is said of His eternal Procession jGrom
the Son.
^ S. Basil the Great (Ep. 38, ed. Ghumier) writes : ** He who speaks
of the Sfisit, speaks of Him as He is in Himself and of Him Whose
Sfibit He is ; and has the Son also in his thoughts at the same time.
And he who has received the last-named does not separate the Spirit
from the Son, but confirms his own Mth in Three, successively as regards
order, but essentially united into One (Person). He who speaks of the
Sfibit alone, implies in his confession Him also Whose Sfibit He
is. And as the * Spirit is Chbist's,* (Bom. viii. 9,) and *is of QoD,' as
the Apostle says, then, as when a person, taking hold of one end of a
chain, must as a matter of course pull the other end along with it ; so
he who attracts the Sfibit, through Him attracts the Pathsb and the
Son also." It is evident that S. Basil here speaks of the necessity of a
concrete representation of the Persons of the Holt Tbinity as regards
their substance, but not in every other case : otherwise it would be ne-
cessary to attribute the Incarnation, not only to the Second Person of tbs
Tbinity alone, but to all of the Persons. Thus, S. Basil's words cannot
be used as a proof of the idea, that if the Holy Ghost proceeds from
the Fatheb, His procession from the Son is also necessarily implied.
The same remark stands good with respect to the other words of 8.
Basil taken by Andrew from his Sermon on Faith.
ADDITIONS ALLOWABLE. 75
reference to the subject discassed; for instance^ he re-
ferred to S. Paul's words: "though we^ or an angel
from heaven, preach any other Grospel unto you, than
that which we have preached unto you, let him be ac^
cwrged.^' (Gal. i. 8.) ''And, notwithstanding this/'
said Andrew, ''many additions were afterwards made to
the doctrine of S. Paul and other parts of Scripture.''
The Fathers of the Nicene Council also added a good
deal to the Creed of the Apostles ; the Fathers of the
second (Ecumenical Council, to the Nicene Creed ; the
Ephesine Fathers again, taught many things not to be
found in the Creed of the Second (Ecumenical Council.
Andrew concluded from all this, that the Council's pro-
hibition only regarded the addition of false opinions to
the already definite doctrine of the Church, but did not
extend over the addition of explanatory words and ex-
pressions. But all this afibrds very little or rather no
proof of the tnith of Andrew's assertion. Apparently
his subsequent arguments have more weight, {a) The
Apostle Paul says : one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one
God and Father of all (Eph. iv. 5, 6) ; the Church is one,
and consequently her authority is (always) one. But
if the Church at different times, in cases of necessity,
allowed herself to make additions (to the Creed) ; then
in after times also, she must retain this right. Our
Sayiouk said: " Lo, I am with you alway, even unto
the end of the worW (S. Matt, xxviii. 20). (b) The
Church must necessarily oppose all heresies, whenever
they arise, by means of her doctrine, and consequently
she must add at times different explanations to the
Creed, which might help to secure her members from
those false doctrines.
e2
76 HISTORY OP THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
Referring to the Canons^ and the testimonies of the
Fathers, adduced by Mark of Ephesus, Andrew en-
deavoured to prove, that the Canon of the Council of
Ephesus only prohibits the exposition of any other faith
or doctrine, but those contained in the Nicseo-Constan-
tinopolitan Creed ; whereas the doctrine on the proces-
sion of the Holy Ghost from the Son, Andrew repeated,
is only an explanation of the words contained in the
Creed itself. In answer to Mark's remark, that the
very Council of Ephesus would not add the word '' Theo-
tocos,'' to the Creed ; Andrew said, that there was no ne-
cessity for such an addition, for the Creed, since it speaks
of the Son of God, as the true God, and of His incar-
nation from the Virgin Mary, implies at the same time
the word " Theotocos/' All the decrees of the Councils
and Fathers Andrew explained in the same manner as
the Canon of the Ephesine Council, though many of
those decrees strictly prohibited any change whatever in
the Nicaeo-Constantinopolitan Creed, either in word or
syllable (S. Cyril of Alexandria), or else plainly com-
mand the preservation of the Creed in the very words
in which it was originally composed. (Pope Agatho.)
The right of the Church of Rome to make the addition to
the Creed, Andrew founded: {a) on the testimonies of
the Fathers, who, as he would have it, taught that the
Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son ;
(6) on the circumstances which obliged that Church to
make the addition, and (c) on the supreme authority and
power of the Papal throne.
To prove his first argument, Andrew referred to S.
Augustine, S. Ambrose, S. Gregory the Great, and S. Hi-
lary ; but, thinking, that the testimonies of the Greek Fa-
VILIOQUE^ WHY ADDED. 11
thers would have more weight with the Greeks^ he made
some short extracts from Basil the Greats Gregory of
Nyssa^ Athanasius^ Chrysostom^ Epiphanius^ Anastasias
the Sinaite^ and Simeon Metaphrastes. All these quo-
tations^ when explained in their true sense say nothing
in fact for the Latin doctrine. They either refer to the
consubstantiality of the Three Persons of the Holy •
Trinity, or else to the temporary mission of the Spirit
by the Son of God.^
Explaining the circumstances under which the Church
of Bome was obliged to make this addition to the Creed,
Andrew said, that the Pope and a Council of Western
Fathers had determined to include this addition in the
Creed, as a refutation of the false opinions circulated by
the Nestorians that the Holy Ghost does not proceed
from eternity. This happened, Andrew said, before the
sixth (Ecumenical Council. But history makes no
mention of any such Council or Council decree. On
the contrary, it is well known that even in the ninth
century Pope Leo III. forbade any such addition to the
Creed, and even had the Nicseo-Constantinopolitan
Creed engraved on two silver tablets in Greek and Latin
and without any addition.
Lastly, to prove the right of the Latin Church or of
her head, the Pope, to make this addition of explanatory
expressions, as the Latins called them, Andrew referred
to S. Cyril of Alexandria, in whose works he purposed to
^ The question as to whether the Eastern Fathers of the Church ac-
tuallj admitted the procession of the Holt G-hobt from the Son, was
examined in the later sittings of this GounciL For this reason we re-
frain from considering the force of this argument, for in Bessarion*s an-
swer to Andrew's speech, it was omitted and left until the subsequent
disputes should take place.
78 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
find very plain allusions to the Pope's authority for doing
so ; but at the same time Andrew took good care not to
quote S. Cyril's own expressions. Cardinal Julian in
his turn referred to Pope Agatho's epistle read in the
sixth QQcumenical Council^ in which the Pope says^ that
all orthodox Councils and Church teachers always fol-
' lowed the doctrine of the Church of Bome^ and that he
fears being condemned by his Lord Jesus Christ^ were
he to keep silence on a truths which he was commanded
to preach to all Christian nations.^ It would not have
been amiss to have remembered that there were many
cases when the Church did not conform to the doctrine
of the Latin Popes^ and that the same Council con-
demned Pope Honorius.2
In the following sittings the Greeks gave an answer
to the objections raised by Andrew of Rhodes and Cardinal
Julian. The learned Scholarius wrote a refutation of them
and presented it to the Emperor^ who handed it over
to Bessarion of Nicsea, ordering him to place it before
the Council.^ Bessarion first of all showed that the ad'
dition to the Creed must be looked upon not as an expla"
nation contained in the Creeds but as an actual addition
to it^ for the Latins found it on another extraneous prin-
ciple, such as, e.g., '' all which the Father hath, the
Son hath also/'
All such additions to the Creed, even if they were really
explanations, were strictly forbidden after the Council of
Ephesus, It is not forbidden to explain the doctrine of
faith. Before the Council of Ephesus the Church
1 Binii Goncil. t. iii. pars 1, sec. 1, pp. 27, 28. * Ibid. p. 151.
^ The sittings were held on the Ist and 4th of l^oyember. Syr. tL
21. Synod. Flor. pp. 183—216.
EXPLANATIONS PROHIBITED — ^WHY? 79
CE!camenical could insert such explanations into the
Creed. But since the time of the third (Ecumenical
CSouncil any additions whatever to the Creed were
strictly forbidden. And this Canon was evidently not
meant against those additions to the Creeds which dis*
agreed with it^ for those additions were always^ even
in former times^ prohibited by the Church. In S.
Cyril's epistle to Acacius of Mitylene^ Bessarion con-
tinued^ it is said, " The holy (Ecumenical Council as-
sembled at Ephesus has prohibited the introduction into
God's Church of any confession of faith^ but the one
existing, which was handed down to us by the blessed
Fathers, through whom the Holy Ghost did speak." ^
Thus, the Council prohibits any other composition of
the confession of faith, and not the exposition of another
faith ; prohibits this not only as regards private indi-
viduals, but the whole Church, and even puts itself
under this very prohibition. The Fathers did not add
"Theotocos" to the Creed, though the notion ex-
pressed by this word is nothing more than a short ex-
planation of the doctrine contained in the Creed, and
the addition itself was useful and necessary as a refuta-
tion of the Nestorians. The Councils following also
did not insert in the Creed those dogmatical definitions,
which had been drawn up by them, though they also
served to develop the doctrine contained in the Creed,
and though the doctrine of the Council on the Two Na-
tures and Two Wills in Christ would have served as a
firm bulwark for the orthodox doctrine against the Mo-
nophysites and Monothelites. On the contrary, we
see, as far as we can judge from the acts of the (Ecume-
^ Binii 1. 1, pars 2, Cono. Ephes. par. 3, p. 438.
80 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
nical Councils^ beginning with those of Ephesus^ that
the holy Fathers of these Councils had received and
confirmed the Creed in the same form, in which it was
left to the Church by the two first (Ecumenical Coun-
cils, nor did they make any change in it.
At the same time the holy Fathers found means of
ministering to the wants of the Church, without break-
ing the decrees of the Council of Ephesus. The Church
stood in need of new expositions of doctrine in the
Creed; the Fathers made these expositions in their
definitions (ogoii) which were not inserted in the Creed,
but published apart.
This method of acting does not prove that the autho-
rity of the Church has in any way been lessened since
the Council of Ephesus, but rather testifies to her unity.
Remaining true to the former decrees, the Church shows
that she had always one and the same will. By these
means she preserves herself, otherwise she would have
proved false to her own decrees. Thus, the Church of
Rome cannot excuse the addition she has made to the
Creed by any circumstances or authority which she
has appropriated to herself; for the Council forbids
any addition to the Creed even in case of necessity.
And as to the authority of the Church of Rome, Bessa-
rion added, much could be said about it, but this was
not the time, nor the place for such discussions; we
know well enough what rights and privileges the Church
of Rome has ; we are aware of her power, as well as of
the limits of her power. How can an individual Church
arrogate to herself the right of making an addition to
the Creed when the same right is refused by the Coun-.
cils even to the Church Catholic?
LATIN DIFFICULTIES. 81
The Latin disputants^ on hearing this answer^ sought
the advice of the Cardinals and Bishops^ which resulted
in a tedious speech made by Andrew of Rhodes^ and
one quite irrelevant to the subject discussed.^
In the following sitting (Nov. 8)^ in answer to Bes-
sarion's speech^ — John, Bishop of Forli, repeated the
arguments already made use of at the Council, backing
them by his Latin Divines ; he said, that the ^^ Filioque^'
clause is not an addition of a new article of faith, but a
simple explanation contained in the expression, ''ex
Patre," as the Old Testament contains the New, fec.^
The Latins at last perceived that the whole weight of
the Greek arguments consisted in the definition of the
third (Ecumenical Council. This is why Cardinal Julian,
who entered into a dispute with the Greeks after John,
made use of all possible means to explain the prohibi-
tion made by that Council favourably for his own
Church. It was made, said Julian, under particular
circumstances shown in the acts of the Ephesian Coun-
cil, and was in fact directed against the unorthodox
creeds. It was thus. A certain Charisius, Priest of
Philadelphia, came to the Council of Ephesus with a
complaint against the Lydian Bishops, who had excom-
municated him for not agreeing to receive the Nestorian
Creed alone. At the same time, Charisius, to prove
his orthodoxy, presented his own confession of faith,
(which, though orthodox, did not correspond exactly
to the Nicene Creed,) and also the Nestorian Creed.
1 Synod. Flor. pp. 216, 217 5 Syr. yi. 21. Both the Greek historians
muinimously agree in this.
* Synod. Flor. pp. 218 — 242. The end of John's speech is not found
here.
£ 3
82 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
The Fathers, after having read both these creeds,
found the Nestorian Creed full of false doctrines, and
decreed that no one should dare to draw up another
confession of faith, but the one received by all. Conse-
quently, said Julian, if the Fathers did not reject Cha-
risius' creed, as an orthodox one, though diflFering from
the Nicene Creed, and condemned the Nestorian Creed,
then the prohibition regarded only unorthodox creeds.
In answer to Julian, Mark noticed that Charisius'
confession of faith, though not condemned by the Coun-
cil by reason of its orthodoxy, was neither received as a
creed of the (Ecumenical Church, on account of its dif-
fering from the Nicene Creed, in many expressions.
.The Fathers found that Charisius^ Creed was only an
orthodox confession of a private individuals faith. And
the Church, continued Mark, never forbade any one to
confess his faith in different expressions, as long as his
confession was orthodox, and not given out as a ccm*
fession of faith for the whole Church. It is well known
that, at many of the subsequent Councils, many of the
members couched their confession of faith in whatever
expressions they chose. Thus, the Pope Agatho, and So-
phronius. Patriarch of Jerusalem, expressed their confes-
sion of faith in the Epistles read and approved by the
sixth (Ecumenical Council. The same is to be seen
from those Synodal Epistles which every newly-ordained
Bishop sends to the Church representatives in the East
as a proof of his orthodoxy. This, then, is the reason
why the Council did not condemn Cbarisius' creed, not-
withstanding its slight difference from the Nicene Creed.
But every newly-composed creed, even though orthodox,
would have been condemned by the Council if it had
CREEDS. 83
been used instead of the Nicene Creed for the teaching
of catechumens at their Baptism, or, generally speaking,
during Church service. And this is easily seen firom
the circumstance, that the holy Council of Ephesus,
after condemning the Nestorian Creed, plainly and de-
cisively prohibited the introduction of any creed, how-
ever orthodox, different to that of Nicsea; and this
was done to preserve the Nicene Creed from any in-
terpolations or changes. In saying this, added Mark,
I do not judge for myself. S. Cyril explains the
meaning of the Canon, and he was personally pre-
sent at the Council. In his Epistles to John of
Antioch, and Acadus of Mitylene, he explains this de-
cree of the Council in the same way as it is understood
by the Eastern Church, and as we ourselves have just
shown:
Julian, objecting to such an explanation of the
Church Canon, said, that the Council of Ephesus
makes no difference between the private and general
Church use of newly-composed creeds; but generally
prohibits every Christian, whether belonging to the
laity or clergy, to draw up any other confession of
fedth : hence Julian concluded again, that the Canon,
has force only as regards heterodox creeds. In answer to
this objection, Mark showed that the Nestorian Creed,
as was proved by Charisius, and could be seen from the
signatures to it, was used not as a private confession of
faith, but was offered to certain heretics, who were to
sign it as a condition of their being received into the
Church. It was with this object in view that the
Council prohibited the drawing up of any new creeds —
especially for general use in the Church. For this rea-
84 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
son it did not condemn Charisins' confession^ which
was in fact a private one^ though it did not agree in
many expressions with the Nicene Creed.^
The Latins^ however, obstinately repeated their former
arguments in defence of the addition to the Creedi
The indefatigable Cardinal tired his auditors with his
long speeches ; thinking his arguments invincible, he
said to Mark, '^ If you adduce ten arguments, I for my
part am ready to oppose ten thousand of them in de-
fence of my opinion/' And when he noticed that the
Greeks continued to refute his arguments and proofs,
he tried to incline them to change the subject of dis-
cussion. "Let ns, holy Father,^' said he to Mark,
" examine the very dogma itself, and if the addition to
the Creed proves to be contrary to the Orthodox doc-
trine, why, then we will drop the subject and erase it
from the Creed. If, on the contrary, it shall be proved
that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son, then we
must conclude that the addition is a correct one, and
must retain it in the Creed.^'^
1 Synod, flor. pp. 242, 297. These disputes took place in the sit-
tings of the 11th and 16th of N'ovember. They re-commenced on the
4th and 8th of December (Syn. Flor. pp. 800, 804) ; bnt are not Tery
minntely described in the History of Syropulus. One of Julian's
speeches in defence of theFilioque clause was afterwards published
separately by the Abbot Budesino Andosilla in Florence, 1762.
« Synod. Flor. pp. 287, 289 ; Syr. vi. 22.
85
CHAPTER VI.
BSMOYAL OP THE COTTSCIL TO FliOBEIirCE. DlSFUTSS ON THE FbO-
CE8SI0V 07 THE HOLT GhOST 7B0M THE SON.
These two months' discussions were also without any
real results (firom Oct. 8th till Dec. 8th) : for each party
stood firm in its own persuasions. The Greeks finding^
all their efforts to incline the opposite party to their
cause unayailable^ wished to return home. The Latins
however kept repeating, that it was necessary to ex-
amine the very dogma itself^ and managed first of all
to gain the Emperor over to their opinion, who readily
yielded to their persuasions, hoping to ensure the Latin
aid in the cause of the Empire.
But when the Emperor told the Bishops, that he also
wished for an alteration of the discussions, he received
the following answer : "The very reason why the Latins
try to make us terminate the discussions on the addition
is, that they find no suitable and sufficient answer to
our arguments. It would then be very imprudent to
forsake so impregnable a fortress/' Gregory the Al-
moner was the only one who joined the Emperor, and
was soon promoted by him to the rank of Trpcoroa-vy^
The Patriarch sided with the Bishops in this matter.
Twice did the Bishops assemble in his apartments to
take advice of each other, and at last determined to
tell the Pope, that the addition to the Creed inserted
contrary to the Canons and the testimonies of the
Fathers, must be withdrawn ; that it was on this con-
1 Syr. vi 23.
86 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
dition oiily^ that the Greeks would agree to begin the
inyestigation of the dogma itself^ and that in case of
the Latins disagreeing to this^ the Greeks would have
nothing to do with them. At this juncture Bessarion
of Nicaea declared himself to be quite of a contrary
opinion. " Why should we not," he said, ^' discuss with
the Latins on the very dogma? We can tell them
many good things." But his voice was unheard by the
rest of the Bishops.^
The Greek Council coming to this decision, sent
legates to the Emperor, who told him : " The Latins
reject all our most forcible ailments on the question
of the addition, and most dishonestly affirm that the
decrees which anathematise every addition to the Creed
have nothing to do with them. If then we pass on
to the investigation of a dogma, in which the Latins
found their arguments on the testimonies of teachers
unknown to us, how shall we defend the truth?
Leaning back on the Fope^s authority, they will »ay
whatever they like, and will then declare that they have
proved their opinion as plainly as the sun's light : for
they, contrary to all truth, are not ashamed to say that
they have already made good the correctness of the ad-
dition to the Creed, though in reality they have proved
nothing."
The Emperor reckoning only on the aid promised to
him by the Pope, would not pay any attention to what
the Greeks said. Concealing his real motives, he said :
*^ The very reason of our coming to Italy was to make
a strict examination of the doctrine on the procession
of the Holy Ghost, which has been the principal cause
\ Syr. Tii 8, 6.
DI8PUTSB AMONG THE GREEKS. 67
of the division between the Churches. If we leave the
question undecided, we shall show that we have no
strong proofs in defence of the orthodox doctrine, and
that we either agree with the Latins in some respects,
or else avow their doctrine to be true. In my opinion,
we ought most certainly to enter into a discussion on
the procession of the Holt Ghost.'^ After the remarks
made by the Emperor, another Bishop, Dorotheus of
Mitylene, also voted for a change of the subject then
discussed.^
Beckoning on several similar votes, the Emperor ap-
pointed another meeting in his palace to talk upon this
subject. The Patriarch came, ill as he then was ; after
him came the Bishops. The Emperor pleaded the wants
of the empire, and his own efforts to better its condi-
tion. " I have no children,^' he said, " no heirs ; I seek
not glory, but only the welfare of my Greek subjects.^'
Isidore and Bessarion took his part very warmly. It was
determined to decide the matter by votes. The Patri-
arch kept to his own opinion. The Bishops, persuaded
by the Emperor's words, inclined to his opinion also.
Mark of Ephesus simply said : '^ As you find it good to
pass on to the discussion of the dogma itself, I can but
<K)nsent if the others wish it.'' The Chartophylax, the
Protecdicus, and Syropulus, were the only persons among
the Patriarch's nearer officials who divided his opinion.
But, notwithstanding this, the majority of votes car-
ried the opinion, that a discussion on the very doctrine
contained in the addition to the Creed should be entered
upon.^
One obstacle alone remained to be done away with.
I Syr. yii 6, 7. ' Synod. Flor. p. 806, 307 5 Syr. yii 9—11.
88 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
The Pope refused to pay the expenses incurred by the
Greeks during their stay in Ferrara^ under the plea that
he had been deceived by the town's people, and could
not receive the income due to him from his own towns,
on account of their distance &om Ferrara and the dif-
ferent circumstances of war. He then proposed to
move the Council to another place, the more so as it
was generally expected that the plague would again
break out in Ferrara. He pointed to Florence,^ whose
rich citizens had promised to lend him 40,000 gold
pieces, if only the Council was held in their town.
When making this proposition, the Pope on his part
promised the Greeks 12,000 gold pieces besides their
usual pay, and two galleys to succour Constantinople,
and at the same time expressed his hopes of finishing
all the affairs in the course of three or fL months.
The Emperor was long ago aware of the Pope's in-
tention to transfer the Council to Florence, and had
twice sent several persons thither to arrange the matter ;'
but hid his intentions from the Bishops. But when his
last agent returned, he then opened the Pope's plan to
the Greek Council, noticing that, if the Greeks con-
sented to go over to Florence, they would be sure to
receive the salary due to them for the last five months.
At first, the Greeks were quite against this journey^ fear-
^ At that time Cosmo Medici was at the head of the Florentine Be-
public, — a man well known for his riches and love of science. The
Pope opened negotiations with Elorence, through a Florentine Abbat,
the learned Ambrose Trayersari, a protegl of Medici's, and high in the
Pope's &vour. Syr. "ni. 1.
' The Emperor first sent the Hieromonach Macarius to Florence,
under the pretext that he wanted him to procure some valuable manu-
scripts there, and then John Disypatos, (yiL U.)
TRANSLATION OF THE COUNCIL. 89
itkg that the Pope would behave still more independently
with them in Florence^ than he had done before.
" We will not quit Ferrara/' they said ; " and why
should we ? Why can matters be arranged better in
Florence than here ? If the Florentines wish to help
the Pope, then let them send out their promised help
to this town/' '' But the Florentines do not agree to
this/' was the Emperor's answer : " they ask the Pope to
transfer the Council to their town, and promise to lend
him a good sum of money if he does. There you will
be paid not by the Pope, but by the bank, and that too,
at any time you like. You are aware," the Emperor
continued, '' that now we must choose one of the two :
we must either go to Florence, or else to Constanti-
nople; for the Pope cannot and will not continue the
Council here. You would rather return home ? But
will it*be prudent to leave affairs undone ? Think only,
how and on whose account we are to return to Constan-
tinople. Where are our means for the journey ? And
who will aid our poor empire if we anger the Pope by
our obstinacy?"
The want of means for the homeward journey, and
the Pope's refusal to pay the salary due for the last four
months, did more than all the Emperor's arguments to
persuade the Greeks to obey the Pope and consent to
go to Florence. They only demanded that the Pope
should fulfil the promises made to them. The Emperor
stood surety, that the Pope would not deceive them.^
Another circumstance also troubled the Greeks a
good deal. The Patriarch, when ordering the Bishops
1 Syr. Tii. 12 ; Syn. Flor. 308—816. The last assembly was held on
the 2nd of January, 1489.
90 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
to get ready for the journey^ told one of them to send
on all extra luggage to Venice^ and only take what was
necessary^ i.e.^ the vestments^ as the union of Churches
would take place in Florence. This so troubled the
Bishops^ who could see nothing in the past to ensure a
good peace in the future, that the Emperor found it
necessary to assemble them in the Fatriarch^s cell and
quiet their suspicions. ^^I do not know^^^ he said to
them^ ^'whether or not the union will take place; but,
to say the truth, I expect it, and advise all to wish
for it. Only I cannot make out, what reason the Fa-
triarch has for affirming this so unconditionally. No
Greek or Latin could have told him this, because no
one knows anything of the future results of the Council
of Florence. Was it revealed by God to him ? At all
events, let not his words trouble you : nothing is known
as yet.^^ After such an explanation, Mark began asking
the Emperor to collect the opinions of the Bishops on the
dogma, which was about to be investigated in Florence.
'^ If all will agree, I am ready to begin the struggle in
defence of orthodoxy. If not, I shall sit down with
those who always keep silence in the Council.^' But
this straightforward declaration of the most energetic
defender of orthodoxy, so angered those whose con-
sciences were not so very clear, that one of them, Gre-
gory the almoner, turning to the Emperor said : '^ Your
Majesty ! did you appoint him head of the Council ? If
so, tell us, so that we might all obey him.^' Bessarion
of Nicsea was just as discontented with Mark^s words.
The Emperor himself covered the poor old man with
reproaches.^ The very first sitting of the Council in
* Syr. viL 14.
JOXnetNEY TO FLORENCE. 91
Florence showed^ that the Emperor had ahready pro-
mised the Pope to find out some secret means of coming
to an agreement. This serves to explain the Patriarch^s
words^ and the reason of the Emperor's discontent with
Mark's proposal.
On the 10th of January, 1439, the Papal bull pro-
claiming the removal of the Council to Florence, was
read in the Cathedral of Ferrara. The plague was
mentioned as the cause of its removal; — the plague,
which notwithstanding the winter time was then so
violent in the town, and promised to be still worse to-
wards the spring. But, in reality, two months had
passed since the plague ceased.^
The Greeks were paid the money due to them for the
last four months, and two florins each besides to pay the
expenses of their journey. Nineteen thousand florins
were sent to Constantinople. The Pope left the town
with great pomp; but afterwards, fearing an attack
from his ill-wishers, continued his journey with a very
small retinue, and in the dress of a plain monk. Mea-
sures were taken by the Emperor, that none of the
Greeks should slip away and return beforehand to Con-
stantinople. On the 7th of February, the Pope, Bishops,
and the rest of the clergy made a triumphal entry into
Florence : soon after (15th February) the Emperor ar-
rived.^
After a short rest, the sessions recommenced (26th
February). In the first sitting Cardinal Julian reminded
the Emperor of his promise to appoint a committee out of
1 Vide Synod. Flor. p. 316. Syropulus says, that the plague had
ceased. Syr. yii. 14.
2 Syr. viL 15 j Syn. Flor. 315—320.
92 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
several members on both sides^ to inquire into the means
of making peace between the Churches^ and asked him
whether he had any such means in view^ and if he had^
to make them the subject of a public discussion. The
Emperor answered him very ill-humouredly, that it
was of no use talking about this ; that there was no need
of the Greeks alone discussing this subject ; that they
had decided to do so together with the Latins. At the
same time he reminded Cardinal Julian, that the dis-
putes on the addition to the Creed had not yet been
finished; that all the Latin arguments had not per-
suaded the Greeks on the justice of the addition, and that
the Greeks retained the right of re-commencing those
discussions whenever they liked. The Emperor, how-
ever, at last consented to think about the means for a
reconciliation. At the end of the sitting, he assembled
all the Bishops in the Fatriarch^s cell, and proposed
that they should discuss upon the means of reconciling
the Churches. None made any answer to his pro-
posal, and the only thing determined upon was, that
eight persons from among the Council members should
be appointed to enter into a private conference with
the Latins on this subject. But this decision was not
acted upon, for the Pope expecting greater concessions
on the part of the Greeks, demanded that a public dis-
cussion on this subject should take place.^
In the following sitting (March 2) the Latin doctrine
on the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son was ex-
amined. The right of proposing questions, which at
Perrara belonged to the Greeks, was here conceded by
the Emperor to the Latins. Mark of Ephesus was
» Synod. Flop. p. 322—340 j Syr. viii. 1,
LATINS FOR THE FILIOQU£. 98
nearly the only person to keep up the discussions on
the part of the Greeks; Bessarion spoke later^ when the
means of reconciliation were being discussed. Mark
met a skilful opponent in John de Monte Nigro, a Do-
minican provincial^ famed for his dialectical skill.
John commenced by saying that all his arguments
and reasonings would be founded on the authority of
the Holy Scripture and the Holy Fathers ; but in re-
ality made use not of the Holy Scripture, but of differ-
ent doubtful and spurious quotations from the Fathers,
with which he had acquainted himself by means of very
inferior translations; besides this, his very speeches
were nothing but a display of scholastical reasoning.
Instead of explaining the words of the Holy Fathers
conformably to their own writings, he made use of
various scholastical arguments to define the sense of the
words contained in the different quotations from the
Fathers.
Having stated his opinion, that the verb to proceed
means to receive existence (XaftjSavsiv to slvai), John quoted
two places from the works of S. Epiphanius, in which
he tried to find a proof of the procession of the Holy
Ohost not only from the Father, but also from the
Son. Both places are quoted, as they are to be found
in the Latin version of Ambrosius Traversari, whose
translations in general were not famed for anything
like correctness.^ The first place read as follows:
" The Father names Him — the Son, Who is from Him —
^ See Oudin's Comment, de Scriptor. Ecclesiasticis. t. ilL in his
treatise ; Ambrouus Camaldulensis, p. 2434. Hallam, in his History
of European Literature, notices the incorrectness of his versions. Pt.
L pp. 79, 80.
i
94 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
and the Holy Ghost — Him, Who is from both (S /u/vov h^
eifi^olv Io-t/v).^ The other quotations read as follows:
As no one has seen the Father (edpaxev) except the Son^
nor the Son except the Father ; so^ also^ I dare to say^
no one has seen the Holy Ghost except the Father
and Son, from Whom He proceedeth, and from Whom
He receivethj — nor the Son and the Father, except
the Holy Ghost, Who of a truth glorifies and teaches
all things; Who is of the Father and the Son (Srcf
ear) vapoi row IlaTpog xa) Tfou).^ Finding, in the first
place, is from Both; and in the second, is from the
Son, John concluded that according to the doctrine of
^ In the edition of the works of S. Epiphanius, by the Jesuit Feta-
vius, this place reads as follows : rhy Tthv icaA.6< rhy i^ cArov' rh Bh "kywv
Tly&ifjia rh Tap* iifJuf>oT4po»yf & fjiSyoy iriaret yo o6fjL€ya ivh r&y ayiwy, 0pp.
S. Epiph. Ancoratus. t. ii. p. 75.
3 In the same edition this place is read in full, as foUows : €{ roiruy
vapii rod Tlarphs 4ieirop€6cTait K<d 4k rod 4fiov, ^al 6 K^pios, A^croi.
ty yhp rpoicoy ovScU tyvto rhy Tiaripa ei fx^ 6 Tlhsy oitSl rhy *]Cihy €/ fij^ 6
Tlar^pf oUrw roXfiu \4yeiy, $ri obdl rh TlytvfAa €t fi^ 6 Uariip koX 6 tlhs.
Trap* ol iieropeitrai ical rap* o5 Xofifidyei^ Kot od8i rhy Tlhy K(d rhy Ttar^pa
€l M^ rh TlyfvfjLa rh^Ayioy, rh Zo^diov iLKri0&Sf rh MdffKoy ri irdrrOf rh
ftaprvpovy irtpi rod Tiou, t iraph, rov Uarphs icol 4k rod Vlov. Ibid. p. 78.
Considering these words in their full meaning, one sees that the addition
of the verb t» in the last words (Who is from the Fatheb and the Son)
is quite out of place, and what sense these words contain. S. Epipha-
nius all along makes use of the words of Scripture, or else speaks on
its authority. He said at first, proceeds from the Father (irapbk Tlarphs
4KTop€6^ai) and evidently implies the same in the end by the words.
Who from the Father (ft vaph narp6s). Having again first said. He
shall receive from Mine^ saith the Lord (4k rod ifwv X^ctoi), he ex-
presses the same in the end, saying, Kot 4k rod rtod. Otherwise it is
impossible to explain the reason of his using different prepositions vapd
and 4k, if he only wished to express the idea of procession. Evidently
he borrowed these prepositions from the Gospel text, which must con-
sequently serve to define the sense of the words.
IfASK OF EPHB8US ANSWERS. 95
S. Epiphanius^ the Holt Ghost proceeds from the Son
also.
Mark of Ephesus^ without referring to the Greek text
of Epiphanius^ exposed the erroneousness of John^s
conclusion. He said that the words quoted do not ne-
cessarily lead to the conclusion that the Holy Ghost
proceeds from the Son. The expression^ to be from any
one (to ix rivog ehai)^ does not necessarily imply, joroce^A
from any one ; it is used in different senses. S. Epipha-
nius does not say, receives existence ; but only receives,
and says this on the authority of the Lord^s words ; he
shall receive of Mine, and shall show it unto you (S. John
xvi. 14). K S. Epiphanius meant that the Holt
Ghost receives His being from the Son, he would
have said, No one knoweth the Father and the Son
save the Holy Ghost, from Whom (plural n.) He
proceeds and from Whom (pi.) He receives; and then
the words proceeds and receives would be of equal weight.
But Epiphanius, by repeating the pronoun from Whom
(sing.) and placing the conjunction and between the two
words, shows that he gives one meaning to the word
proceeds, and another to receives. The verb, proceeds, is
intended by him to show that the Holt Ghost receives
EQs being from the Father ; and the verb, receives, to
signify that the Holt Ghost, being of one essence
and substance with the Son, propounds to the faithful
a doctrine agreeable to that of Christ Himself. This
explanation of our Lord^s words, ^^ He shall receive of
Mine,'^ Mark confirmed by quoting the explanation of
S. John Chrysostom (on S. John, Hom. 78) and that of
S. Cyril of Alexandria (Thesaurus, c. 14) .
The book of S. Epiphanius was next brought under
96 HISTOBT OF THE COUNCIL OF FLOHENCE.
notice. Mark showed at the very beginning that this
book had been long since interpolated^ and that the first
passage must be read^ is known of Both (icap^ ajx^oTv
yoeiTai), but without the verb ^^is,^' It is not known
what reading was found in the copy employed by
the Council; but it is certain that in both cases the
verb is was not to be found, a verb on which John
founded his principal argument.
John, though he avowed that his mistake arose from
an incorrect version of Traversari,i still continued to
afiSrm that the verb is must be implied in the texts
quoted^ and on this supposition repeated that S. Epipha-
nius had an idea of the procession of the Holy Ghost
from the Son also. But even if we were to imply the
wanting verb here, we still should have no reason to
conclude that S. Epiphanius speaks of the Holy Ghost^s
procession from the Father and the Son. His words
may express the unity of substance in the Persons of
the Holy Trinity. Thus, several teachers say that
the Holy Ghost is from the Father and Son, and
from Their Substance, for He is consubstantial with
the Father and Son.^
To ward off his opponent's attack, Mark, on his part,
quoted the words of S. Basil the Great, in which he
» Syn. Mor. p. 470.
3 An explanation of these passages from S. Epiphanius* works, and
remarks on their being interpolated in the later Latin versions, can be
found in ZoemikoflTs work j Tractatus Theolog. pp. 814, 318. In order
to understand Mark's words rightly, we must bear in view that the pre-
positionyrom, in theological language, sometimes expresses not procession,
but only a similitude or reception of attributes and nature, as for in-
stance in the following words of our Lord : Ye are of this worlds I am
not of this world, S. John viii. 23.
8. BASIL ON THE PKOCESSION. 97
plainly says that the Holt Ghost proceeds from the
Father^ and not elsewhere. This is what S. Basil
writes in his fifth book against Eunomius : ^^ God gives
birth not like man^ but truly gives birth j He from
Himself manifests a birth — the Word^ not a human
word, but shows this Word to be truly from Himself.
He produces the Spirit by His mouth not like man, for
God's mouth is not corporeal, but the Spirit is from Him
and not from aught else.^'^ Receiving John's assent, that
the birth of the Son as well as the procession of the
Holy Ghost belong to the Person of the Father, and
not to His Substance which is one and the same with
the Substance of the Son and Holy Ghost, Mark made
the following conclusion from S. Basil's words : ^' If
the Spirit proceeds from the Person of the Father,
then the expression, not elsewhere^ shows that He does
not proceed from another Person." But, in the subse-
quent disputes on this passage, the opponents passed
over to the most minute questions on the relation of
the Son and Holy Ghost to the Person and Substance
of the Father, as also on the relation of the Person to
the Substance in the Divine Godhead — questions which,
far from shedding new light on the disputed subject,
only afforded new motives for discussion. Mark of
Ephesus kept strictly to the expressions and definitions
of the Greek theologians : John found his defence in
the subtle reasonings of his scholastic teachers.^
1 See the Eussian" Works of the Holy Fathers." Year 4, bk. i. p. 199.
See also Zoemikof^ p. 26.
2 Synod. Flor. pp. 341 — 375. We do not here make mention of
these disputes, which had very Httle to do with the object in view — ^that
of exfunining tiie doctrine of the ancient Fathers of the Church on the
F
98 HISTOBY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
The third sitting (March 5) proved to be as unfruitfiil
as the former ones. Not a single fresh passage from
the works of the Fathers or the Holy Scriptures was
taken into consideration.^
In the three following sittings (7th, 10th, and 14th
of March) one passage from the third book of S. Basil
the Great against Eunomius was principally discussed,
a passage more than once alluded to by John in his
dispute with the Greeks. In the copy presented by
John this place read as follows : ^^ If the Holy Spieit
is third in dignity and order, then why must He be ne-
cessarily third in Substance also ? That He is second
after the Son in dignity, of Him receiveth and an-
nounceth to us, this is told us by the doctrine of faith ;
but that He is third in Substance is not told us by
Scripture, and cannot be strictly concluded from what
was mentioned above.^'
This passage is taken from S. Basil,'^ said Mark,
and is also spoilt in our MSS. as well as in yours; in
Constantinople there are four or five codices in which it
is read in the same manner ; but a thousand of such
Procession of the Holt Ghost — disputes which little explain the doc-
trine, even in the form it was laid down by the scholastic divines of the
Middle Ages, and thus hardly show at all how their reasonings were
looked upon by the Orthodox teachers of the Eastern Church. Instead
of this, we will here point to the separate work of Mark of Ephesus, en-
titled, vfpi rod iKTTopevaeas rov ^Aylov Uyeifiaros, avWoyiariKh ice^xiAata,
pubUshed in Ghreek, together with the Greek translation of Zoemikoff's
work, t. xi. pp. 709 — 741. Here, in fifty-seven chapters, the learned
Pastor of Ephesus uses the same dialectical weapons as the Latins
generally used, against Thomas Aquinas and others. We also find here
some more definite answers to John's reasonings, though he is not
mentioned by name.
* Synod. Flor. pp. 375—406.
<€
FILIOQUE CONTROVERSY. 99
copies can be found in which neither the meaning nor
the words of the Holy Fathers are changed. Very
likely this passage was purposely spoiled/' continued
Mark^ " by some defender of your doctrine/'^ But John
tried to prove this copy to be a genuine one, by saying
that it bore no symptoms of being corrupted, that it was
lately brought from Constantinople, written on parch-
ment, very likely six hundred years old; and, conse-
quently, before the division of Churches took place.
This however was only a supposition. Mark's copy was
also a very old one. The disputed passage read in it as
follows : '^ If the Holy Ghost is third in dignity and
order, then why must He be necessarily third also
in Substance? That the Spirit in dignity occupies
the second place after the Son, this, may be, is taught
by the doctrine of faith ; but, that He is also third in
Substance, is not taught by the Holy Scriptures, and
cannot be well concluded from what is mentioned
above.''^
^ Afterwards another copy of the words of S. Basil against Eunomius
was presented to the Council, where this passage also remained in its
corrupted form. Mark, on looking over this copy, found that it was
written hy the same hand as the first. Synod. Flor. p. 414.
' Works of the Holy Fathers, year 4, bk. i. p. 127. This passage
stands as quoted by Mark in the different edition^ of S. Basil's works :
Pto. 1618, t. ii. p. 78 ; Venet. 1536, fol. 87 ; BasiUsB, 1651, p. 676 ;
1566, p. 139; 1666, p. 339; Paris, 1566, p. 218. Vide Zoemikoff,
p. 219, et seq. The same reading is to be found in the Benedictine
edition, reckoned the best. Paris, 1730 : 1839. The learned editor re-
marks besides, that, out of the seven copies used by him, only one
contained the reading defended by John at the Council of Florence.
In the manuscript of the Moscow Synodal Library, (in Matthia's
catalogue, No. 28, cent, xi.) this passage reads the same as the text
of Mark of Ephesus. (Works of the Holy Fathers, year iv. book
F 2
100 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
Mark^ coupling this passage with the above-mentioned
doctrine of S. Basils proved very clearly that the reading
defended by the Latins was not the genuine reading of
that passage. He pointed to the preceding words of S.
Basils which stood alike in both copies. S. Basils re-
futing Eunomius^ notices: ^^Eunomius says^ that he
has been told by the Saints^ that the Holy Ghost is
third in order and dignity^ and himself believes that he
is third in Substance also. But he cannot say what
Saints propounded this doctrine, and in what words.
Has there ever been so bold a man as he to introduce
such novelties into the Divine dogmas?'^ One sees
from these words, continued Mark, that S. Basil does
not admit that the Fathers call the Holy Ghost third
in dignity, and plainly refuses to admit of His being
third in Substance. Since, then, S. Basil does not
admit that the Holy Ghost is second in dignity after
the Son, why should he affirm a notion he himself
i. p. 129, and notes.) The corrupted reading is for the first time
found in the Latin work of Hugo Eterianus against the Ghreeks, in the
middle of the twelfth century ; the same is alluded to by Bessarion, as
is seen from the Greek version of this work (Allat. de consens. Ecdes.
p. 654) ; and also from its later edition (in Maximal Biblioth. Fatrum,
t. xxii. p. 1176). But Nicetas, Metropolitan of Thessalonica, who in the
same century wrote a refutation of Eterianus, though he himself also
taught wrongly on the Procession of the Holy Ghost, stiU quotes Basil's
words in their genuine sense. This is testified to by Nilus GaTasilas in
his book against the Latin doctrine of the Procession of the Holt
G-HOST (See Allatius de Nilis : irepl rov 'Ayiou Ilvf d/toros \^05 Aarlifww,
Eabr. Bibl. Gr. ed. yet. ad calcem, t. y. p. 65.) Lastly, Gennadius
Scholarius, Patriarch of Constantinople, in the fifteenth century, also
points to the correct reading of this passage in the work of Nicetas of
Thessalonica (Works of the Holy Fathers, year iy. bk. L p. 132, and
notes)*
8. BASIL ON THE FILIOQUE. 101
refuses to admit ; that is, why should he quote words
which form the addition in the Latin reading ?
John, admitting^ together with Eunomius^ that the
Holy Ghost is second in dignity after the Son, affirmed
that this was S. Basil^s opinion ako^ and defended his
own reading by saying — (a) that the Fourth (Ecume-
nical Council calls the doctrine of S. Basil firm and
positive, whereas the reading, "may be, is told us by
the doctrine of faith,^' admits of some uncertainty ; (|3)
that, further on, S. Basil, to confirm his notion, that
one must not argue from the difference in dignity to
a difference in nature, points to the example of the
angels. If we are to admit what is here said about the
angels unconditionally, then in the same way must we
admit S. Basil^s words on the Holy Ghost ; i. e., that
he, not consenting to admit a difference between His
substance and that of God^s Son, at the same time
admits a difference in their dignity. To this Mark very
justly replied, that to admit a contrary idea on a sup-
position, only to refute it on its being admitted, does
not show any signs of uncertainty. In this sense
S. Basil says, " That the Holy Ghost in dignity occu-
pies the second place afber the Son, this, may be, is
told us by the doctrine of faith.^' Farther on, the re-
ference to the example of the angels only confirms an
idea admitted by S. Basil on a supposition ; and thus
the force of his argument is in no way weakened.
To prove that the idea included in the supplementary
Latin reading on the procession of the Holy Ghost
from the Son is quite strange to S. Basil, Mark re-
ferred to the Father's own words in his epistle to his
brother Gregory of Nyssa: ^^ Everything good, given
102 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
to US by GoD^s power, we call an act of the all-acting
grace; as the Apostle says, ^ But all these worketh that
one and the self-same Spirit, dividing to every man
severally as He will/ (1 Cor. xii. 11.) But we will
ask, Is it £rom the Holy Ghost alone that the distri-
bution of gifts to those worthy of them takes its origin ?
The Scriptures teach us to believe that the original Au-
thor of the distribution of gifts, which act in us by the
Holy GHosT,is the Only-begotten God; for the Scripture
tells us that ' all things were made by Him,^ (S. John i. 3,)
and ^by Him all things consist/ (Col. i. 17.)^' A little
lower S. Basil continues, "Thus, whereas the Holy
Ghost, from Whom all good giffcs are distributed among
created beings, depends upon the Son, with Whom He
is inseparably received, and has His existence from the
Father, as from the Cause from which He proceeds,
then in this He has a distinguishing attribute of His
difference in Person, namely, that He is known by the
Son and with Him, and is from the Father.^'
Notwithstanding the plainness with which these words
proved the eternal procession of the Holy Ghost from
God the Father, and His dependence on the Son
only as regards the distribution of gift» to His crea-
tures, still Johuy purposely playing on the word rfc-
pendsy gave it a sense of procession by existence ; and
coupling to these words of S. Basil what was also said
by him to Eunomius, made out the following syllo-
gism : — " The Son is the Principle, as He is G^d from
God ; in what relation the Son stands to the Father,
and depends on Him, in the same relation stands the
Holy Ghost to the Son, and depends on Him. This
is why the Son is called second in order and dignity.
DISPUTE ON THE FILIOQUE. 103
and the Holt Ghost third. This order is the order of
their procession/^ All this reasoning has no founda-
tion whatever in the real words of S. Basil. "The
sense of the verb depends/' said Mark to his opponent^
" is defined by the nearest words^ is inseparably received
with Him. And with regard to the expressions^ third in
order and dignity, they are not affirmed by S. Basils who
only says that Eunomius maintains such an opinion. It
is necessary^ however/' continued Mark, " that the Per-
sons of the Trinity exist in some order between them-
selves. The only Son, Who shines forth after the fashion
of the Only-Begotten, from the uncreated Light, must
be placed after that very Light; and therefore the Holy
Ghost must be reckoned third, in order that He should
not be taken for the Son, when not distinguished from
Him in order.'^^ Such also is S. Basil's opinion; other-
wise, if he had placed the Spirit in the same relation
to the Son as the Son is to the Father, then he would
not have accused Eunomius as a bold innovator for
having called the Spirit third in order and dignity.
Wishing to prove that S. Basil could not have re-
futed the idea of the Holy Ghost's procession from the
Son as a new idea, John quoted the words of S. Atha-
nasius the Great in his dialogue with Arius at the
Nicene Council, and in his epistle to Serapion. In the
first place, according to John's reading, it is said, ^' If
the Holy Ghost is not from the Substance of the Fa-
ther and the Son, then how is it that the Son places
* "'EoTt ix\v iufdyicri Kal icori t\ r^raxOai rh 0€to TlpSo'onra, Tibs fi6vos
fwvoycv&s 4k rod kyewftrov (parbs iK\<i^^cts, fJLfr* ainhv 6<f>€t\u &piOfi€7a''
dcUf Ktd Kark rovro rplrov otpclXet h^idfk^ladtu rh UvfVfiA rh "Aryiov %va fi^
irapcBToirrofJLey rod TioD, 80^27 Koi airrh Ytbs elvai. Synod. Flor. 430.
104 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
His Name in the tradition of sanctification (i. e., in the
commandment of sanctification or baptism)^ where He
says. Go ye therefore and teach aU nations, baptizing
them in the Name of the Father^ and of the Son^ and
of the Holy Ghost/^^ In the last-mentioned place^ it
is said, ^^ The Spirit receives of the Son, according to
the LoRD^s words, ^ He shall receive of Mine, and shall
give it unto you/ " Of the Son it is said, ^' I am come
in My Pather^s Name,'^ (S. John v. 43) ; and of the
Spirit, ^^The Holy Ghost, Whom the Father will
send in My Name/' (xiv. 16.)
If then the Spirit, compared with the Son^ has
the same order and nature (ro^iv xa) ^6civ) as the Son
has, compared with the Father, he who calls the
Spirit a creature will of necessity think the same of
the Son.2 But Mark very justly remarked, in answ^
to the first premiss, that '^we also confess that the
Holy Ghost is third in order in the Divine Trinity;
but for Him to be third in dignity also — it is really as-
tonishing how you make out that things have been said
which have never been mentioned anywhere V' With
regard to the second place, Mark said, " S. Athanasius
wrote this against the Pneumatomachi, who placed the
Holy Ghost lower than the Son, and called Him a
creature. Wishing to prove that the Holy Ghost is of
equal honour and consubstantial with the Father and
> S. Athanasius, 0pp. Ed. Montfaucon, t. iii. pp. 206 — 230. In the
works of S. Athanasius, we read, not 4k rrjs olfflas rod Tlarpbs Ktd rod
Ttow, but, 64 ob iffri T^s rov Tlarpbs koX rod Tlov ohffias, " if not of one
substance with the Fatheb and Son." This work, thdugh, is regarded
as not belonging to Athanasius.
* This place is more ftdly explained in ZoemikofTs work, pp. 759 —
761.
DISPUTE ON THE FILIOQUE. 105
SoN^ S. Atlianasius shows that the Holt Ghost in
Scripture is placed in equal order with the Father and
SoN^ and has the same will and action. The teachers
of the Church always used this argument to prove the
unity of nature of one Person with the other. If S,
Athanasius had reasoned as you do^ then why did he
not say^ The Son has existence from the Father^ and
the Holy Ghost from the Son ; or, the Father gives
birth to the Son, and the Son brings forth the Spirit ?
But he only compares their works in the economy of
man's salvation/^ To conclude, Mark mentioned the
very words of S. Athanasius, in which he calls God the
Father the only source of Divinity.^
John tried to defend his opinion by the words of S.
Basil, taken from his homily on the Holy Baptism :
"We must confess one Father, one Son, one Spirit :
not two Fathers, nor two Sons, for the Spirit is not
the Son, neither is He called so ; and from the Spirit
we do not receive any one, as we do (receive) the Spirit
from the SoN."^ This is the real sense of these words,
received by Mark of Ephesus. But John translated
and explained the last words quite in a different man-
ner.3 This dispute is remarkable for having given the
^ In the homily on the consubstantiality of the Son and the Holy
Ghost with the Fatheb, agamst the Sabelliaus. 0pp. S. Athanas. Ed.
Mont&uc. t. iii pp. 37, 48. The editor finds a very striking affinity
between this homily and a sermon of S. Basil's, also against the Sabel-
lians, (Ed. Gamier, Hom. xxiv.,) and for this reason places it among
the doubtful works of S. Athanasius.
s This sermon also is thought not to belong to S. BasiL
' The Chreek words are, ohtk yhip &ir^ rov TlveAfxaros rivh Kofifidvofiey,
Koff %v fp^oy inrh rod Tlov TlpevfM^ John translated these words thus :
We do not receive from the Spibit, as the Spibit from the Soir." In
F 3
«
106 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
Latin scholastics an opportunity of introducing a ques-
tion on spiritual gifts, viz., whether they were to be
looked upon as created or not ?
This question, besides having very little to do with the
principal subject of the dispute, and the explanation of
the passage taken from the homily attributed to S. Basil,
afforded very little advantage to Mark in its decision,
and rather lengthened the controversy than otherwise,
Mark knew very weU how many disputes originated
from this question in the middle of the fourteenth
century in the Church of Constantinople, during the
discussions on the Divine Substance and actions, on the
creation or non-creation of spiritual gifts. Even to-
wards the end of the private sessions in Ferrara, when
the bliss of the righteous was the subject of discussion,
this question was also proposed. Mark at that time
even declined to give any answer; for, says Syropulus,
the Emperor had settled and ordered beforehand that
answer to thia translation Mark said, very justly, that (a) it is not
said, \(mfidif€L rh Tlvevfia, but simply, Ka6^ hv rpSrov iach rov Xlov Tivtv-
IM ; consequently, the verb remains the same, Kafxfidyofifi/ : (jS) that
this translation, by its very meaning, does not answer the purpose of
the preacher, who proves that there is one Fathee, one Son, and
one Holt Ghost. The first no one doubts ; the second is proved by
this, that the Spirit, though proceeding from the Fatheb, is not the
Son, and is called the Holt Ghost j the third by this, that we do not
receive any one from the Spieit, like we receive from the Son the Holy
Ghost, with His Divine gifts. The very order of the words requires
such an explanation to be given. The Latin translator, on the contrary,
introduced a perfectly strange idea, which had no real relation to the
foregoing ideas. John, in the meantime, gave these words such a mean-
ing as this : the Spibit receives the Divine nature fi^m the Son, and
we, the gifts of gra<;e. The first is not created, said John ; the second
are created.
CREATION OF hfipyeion. 107
no one should dare to answer these questions.^ And
now Mark again^ notwithstanding his opponent thrice
asked him for an answer^ kept silence. And this silence
of his^ for an impartial judge^ was better than the thou-
sand fine speeches which he could have made if he liked^
on a subject not new to him^ and one which of course he
had well studied from the works of his divines. He could
foresee what explanation would be given to his resolution ;
but^ not wishing to give occasion for new disputes^ kept
silent. The Emperor^ understanding what a sacrifice
Mark was making for the general peace^ took his part^
and twice noticed to the interrogator that his question
did not pertain to the subject discussed^ and that the
Greeks had not come to answer such questions. ^
The disputes then continued with regard to other
passages taken from the Fathers. But this sitting of
the assembly^ the sixth in Florence^ was the last of those
in which both sides took part in the controversy. By
the time of the following sitting, the Emperor, weary
with the tediousness with which affairs were carried on,
commissioned Mark to prepare an exposition of the
principal foundations of the Orthodox doctrine on the
disputed subject.*
Thus, in the following sitting, (March 17,) Mark
spoke before the Coimcil ; and, adducing one by one
the passages of the Gospel and Apostles, the decrees of
•1 Syr. V. 18.
s Mark was often unjustly blamed for his silence on this occasion by
the Pope and others ; e.g., by Joseph Metho, in his objections to Mark's
epistle. We shall see further on, that the G^reeks would not discuss
this subject, even when they had agreed to an union with Eome.
' Syr. Tiii 1.
108 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
the Councils, and the testimonies of the Fathers till the
Third (Ecumenical Council, showed how the authority
of Scripture and the doctrine of the ancient Church
confirm the dogma confessed in aU its purity by the
Orthodox Eastern Church, and refute the newly in-
vented doctrine of the Church of Rome. Here is an
extract from his speech : —
"First of all, God the Word Himself, the First
Divine and Teacher of Divines, in His last discourse
with His disciples, told them, when imparting to them
the secrets of theology, ' When the Comforter is come.
Whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the
Spirit of Truth, Which proceedeth from the Father,
He shall testify of Me/ Here, by three expressions,
our Saviour has placed the three Divine Persons in
their relation to each other. Of the Spirit He says,
'When He is come;' of Himself with the Father,
' Whom I will send unto you from the Father ;' then
of the Father alone, 'Which proceedeth from the
Father/ See you not a strict exactness in this Divine
doctrine ? The words when . . . come show the freedom
and superior dignity of the Spirit. When He says,
' Whom I will send unto you from the Father,' then
He shows His own and His Father's will of sending
the Holy Ghost. But when He says, 'Which pro-
ceedeth from the Father,' He shows the Cause of the
Spirit, from Which He takes His existence. . . Why,
then, did not the Lord say, after mentioning Himself,
and attributing to Himself and the Father the mission
of the Holy Ghost, why did He not say of His proces-
sion, 'Which proceedeth from Us?' He woidd un-
doubtedly have said so, if He had avowed the proces-
MARK ON THE FBOCESSION. 109
dion of the Holy Ghost from Himself also. And that
the procession from the Father forms a personal attri-
bute of the Holy Spirit,, and that consequently no
' Filioque' can be implied here, is testified by S. Gre-
gory. Representing the personal attributes of the Di-
vine Persons, he says, ^ Keeping within the limits given
us, we introduce the Unborn, Bom, and Proceeding
One from the Father.' ^ Thus, when the personal
attribute of the Holy Ghost is His procession from the
Father, and not plainly a procession, — and the per-
sonal attribute must fully coincide with the person to
whom it belongs, as a person, including nothing more
or less in itself, — then, if there is a Holy Ghost, He
proceeds from the Father ; and if some one proceeds
from the Father, then it is the Holy Ghost.
" Christ's disciple Paul writes in his Epistle to the
Corinthians : ' Now we have received, not the spirit of
the world, but the Spirit which is of God.' (1 Cor. ii.
12.) Let no one suppose that in this text one can im-
ply the Son under the name of God. S. John explain-
ing2 this theology in his revelation to Gregory the
Wonder-worker, at the mediation of the Virgin Mary,
says: One is the Holy Spirit, receiving His being
from God, and appearing to men through the Son.
It is evident, that here one must not imply the Son in
the words 'receiving His being from God,' for other-
wise it would not have been said, and appearing to men
through the Son ....
** After the Divine Apostle Paul, let his disciple blessed
* Sermon on Theology, iii. Works of the Fathers, pt. iii. p. 54.
^ [It must be remembered that the authenticity of this Apocryphal
book was at that time not disputed by the Latins.]
110 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
Dionysius come forth . . f . Showing the difference of
the Divine persons, he says : ' there is one source of
the pre-essential Godhead— God the Father/ ^ Thus,
if the Father is the only source of Divinity, and in this
differs from the Son and Holt Ghost, then neither the
Son nor the Holy Ghost can be the source of Di-
vinity together with the Father. The same is said by
S. Athadasius the Great in his sermon on the eternal
existence of the Son and Holy Ghost. We differ, he
says, both from the Jews and from those who offend
Christianity, who, denying God from God, say as the
Jews do, that there is one God, not meaning that there
is one unborn and one source of Divinity — ^the Father,
— but implying that He has no Son or Living Word.
" But let us show you also the definitions of the (Ecu-
menical Coimcils ; they confirm our doctrine. The first
holy (Ecumenical Council by the mouth of Leontius,
Bishop of Csesarea, speaks thus to the doubting philo-
sopher : ^ Receive the one Divinity of the Father, Who
hath produced the Son, and of the Son bom of Him, and
of the Holy Ghost proceeding from the very Father and
proper to the Son, as the Divine Apostle says : If any
man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His.'^
(Bom. viii. 9.) The Fathers signify by the words
^ proper to the Son,^ that though the Holy Ghost does
not proceed from the Son, He is not strange to Him, is
His own by essence, consubstantial with Him. Basil
the Great teaches the same : ^ The Spirit is called
Christ, as essentially united to Christ.^3 jf g^ Basil
^ De diy. nominib. c. 2.
* CfelaaiuB Cyz. in the BSstory of the first CEcumenical CounciL
3 On the Holt G-host to Amphilochius, chap. xTiii.
MARK ON THE FILIOQUE. Ill
had admitted the existence of the Spirit from the Son^
as the interpolated book says^ then he would not have
said: 'as united essentially to Christ/ but 'as pro-
ceeding and receiving existence from Him/
*' The second (Ecumenical Council wishing to explain
the words of the Nicene Creed : ' and in the Holy Ghost/
and to show more clearly against heretics, how it is
that the Holy Ghost is reckoned together with the
Father and the Son, speaks thus in its symbol : ' we be-
lieve in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and giver of life, Who
proceedeth from the Father, Who with the Father and the
Son together is worshipped and glorified,' Here attention
must be paid to the objects the Fathers had in view
when writing these words. The Council wished to re-
present the manner of the Holy Ghost's union with
the Father and the Son, and see now how distinctly
the Council marks the affinity of the Holy Ghost with
the Father and the Son. The Fathers did not say
that the Spirit is reckoned with the Father and Son,
but that He proceeds from the Father, and is to-
gether worshipped and together glorified with the Fa-
ther and Son, that is. He is of equal honour, and con-
substantial with Them. If the Council had admitted
the Spirit's procession from the Father and the Son,
why then did it not in speaking of the Father and
Son say : ' Who proceedeth from the Father and the
Son, Who with the Father and the Son is together
worshipped and together glorified ?' This is what should
have been said if the Council had adhered to such a doc-
trine. But whereas, in the first case, the Fathers did
not mention the Son, when they were showing the cause
of the procession, and did mention Him in the second
112 HISTOBT OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
place when showing His equality of honour and consub-
stantiality^ then it is plain^ that they did not admit of
the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son also.
That this explanation is a perfect one, and not half-per-
fect, as you say, is evident from this, that none of the
subsequent Councils gave any new version to the ex-
planation and did not add, that the Spirit proceeds from
the Son. On the contrary, all the Councils have pro-
hibited and reproved this addition by their decrees, as
if prophetically foreseeing what would happen among you.
'^ Gregory the Theologian says quite conformably with
himself and the other Fathers : ^ Everything the Fa-
ther has belongs to the Son, with the exception of
causality.'
^^ The third (Ecumenical Council having listened to the
Nestorian Creed (presented by the presbyter Charisius)^
which, among other things, contained the following:
' The Holy Ghost is not the Son, neither does He take
His existence through the Son,' — received and approved
of this theology, as being that of the Fathers and con-
formable with the Divine Scripture — without making
any objection against it. But in its decree on the Creed^
the Council remarked: 'if any, whether Bishops, or
priests, or laymen, shall be discovered either holding or
teaching the things contained in the exposition, which
was exhibited by the presbyter Charisius concerning the
incarnation of the only-begotten Son of God, or^ the
impious and profane doctrine of Nestorius, they shall
be subjected to the sentence of this holy and (Ecume-
nical Synod/2 g^^^ my Fathers, what doctrine in this
1 Canon VII. Instead of ^^or^^* Mark of Ephesus used rovriim,
3 Canons of the Church. Hammond, p. 69.
MARK ON THE FILIOQUE. 113
Creed the Council calls impious and profane? The
doctrine on the incarnation of the only-begotten Son of
GrOD. Thus^ we see^ that the dogmas relating to the-
ology^ were found by the Council to be sound, religious^
and meriting no reproof. This also is no smaU argu-
ment in favour of the universal doctrine of the Church,
that the Holy Ghost does not proceed from the Son.
" And when Cyril the blessed, disputing with Nesto-
rius on the procession of the Holy Ghost, gave some
reason to think that he admitted the Spirit's procession
from the Son, then Theodoret, rebuking him in the
name of the Eastern Bishops, wrote : 'If he (Cyril of Alex-
andria,) calls the Spirit proper to the Son, in the sense
that He is consubstantial with the Son and proceeds
from the Father; then we agree with him and call his
words orthodox. But if in the sense, that the Spirit
receives His existence from the Son, or through the
Son, then we reject his words as evil and blasphemous.
For we believe the Lord, Who said: The Spirit of
truth, which proceedeth from the Father/ Answer-
ing this accusation in a letter to a certain Bishop —
Eutropius, Cyril complains of being slandered by him on
account of his enmity towards himself and his friendship
with Nestorius. He also wrote in his apology, that
'though the Spirit proceeds from the Father, still
He is no alien to the Son, for the Son has everything
jointly with the Father.' See, how he agrees with
that part of the doctrine in which Theodoret agrees
with him. Lastly, on the conclusion of peace with the
1 eeoAoy/o. The old Fathers usually used this word to denote the
intrinsio doctrine on the Diyinitj, and to distinguish it from the doctrine
an the Incarnation, or the economy of the salvation of mankind.
114 HISTOBY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
Easterns, Cyril the blessed wrote on the same subject
to John of Antioch. Here he again speaks of the pro-
cession of the Holy Ghost and of the Creed: ^We do
not allow ourselves or others to change a single expres-
sion in the Symbol of Faith, to omit one syllable, ever
mindful of him who said : Remove not the ancient
landmark, which thy fathers have set, (Prov. xxii. 28,)
for it was not they who spoke, but the Spirit of God
and FATHER,-which proceedeth from Him, but is not
alien to the Son, as regards His essence/ You can
see from this also, to what part of Theodoret's di-
vision Cyril agrees to. On the receipt of this epistle
by the Easterns, Theodoret finding this theology con-
formable with his own doctrine and that of Scripture,
wrote to John of Antioch as follows : ' The last epistle
(of Cyril) is adorned with Gospel honesty; for in it,
our Lord Jesus Christ is received as perfect God and
perfect man, and the Holy Ghost not receiving His
existence from or through the Son, but as proceeding
from the Father and proper to the Son. Finding this
epistle correct we have given praise to Him, Who has
healed the stammerers and changed discordant sounds
into a perfect harmony.^
^^ We see from all this,^^ concluded Mark, '^ that we
teach conformably with Holy Scripture, and the holy Fa-
thers, and Teachers, nothing changing or misrepresent-
ing in the dogmas handed down to us, nothing adding to
them, or taking from them, and adding nothing new."
John several times interrupted Mark's speech with
his remarks, that he had diverged from the fixed order
of the dispute. But the defender of orthodoxy answered :
^^ All the preceding sittings passed in the examination
ONE CAUSE AND ONE PRINCIPLE. 115
of two or three passages from the Fathers. This way
of conducting the dispute must not last for ever^ and
we have therefore agreed to offer our arguments con-
cretely, extracting them not from any spurious or little
known sources^ not from doubtful and corrupted places,
but from the Holy Scriptures, and by all received pas-
sages from the Fathers. If we continue to dwell upon
one and the same subject, there will be no end of our
refutations of your words and answers."
After this, John also found it expedient to make a
solemn proclamation, that ^^ the Church of Rome does
not admit of two principles or causes in the Trinity, but
pnly one cause and one principle, anathematising all
who think to the contrary."^ Here John intention-
ally avoided a fuU explanation of what he meant, for
he never reftised to admit the Son as a cause of the
Holy Ghost, but said, that the Father is the ori-
ginal cause of the Spirit, and that the Son derives
power from the Father to educe the Spirit not from
Himself, but from the Father.^ John^s words were
not without their influence.
The Emperor deeming everything done on his own
part to sustain orthodoxy, appointed a separate assembly
of Greeks at the Patriarchs residence. There, he
showed the Bishops, that the time was passing by very
quickly, whereas the disputes had advanced matters a
very little farther. It is time, said he, to terminate the
disputes and seek other means for our reconciliation
1 Synod. Hop. pp. 511—650.
2 ^od. Flop. pp. 492 — 493. *0 Tlhs iK rov Uarphs Kaixfidiffi KOi
rh €h€U Koi, rh irpofidWeiv rh Tlvevfia oIk i^ lai/roD i,W* i^ iKelvov' kot^
rovTOV rhv \6yov hpx^^^^^^ Kai avKcas cClriov rod Uvfvfiaros 6 Dar^p.
116 HISTOEY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
with the Latin Church. These means are in your hands^
my fathers ! Brother John has said before the whole
of the Council^ that the Latins admit one cause of the
Son and the Holy Ghost — the Fatheb. The Emperor
then showed a written exposition of the doctrine^ given
to him by John.
But the Bishops^ knowing well what double meaning
lurked under the expressions used by John in the written
exposition of the Latin doctrine^ sought another^ firmer
foundation for peace. The attention of all was turned
to the epistle of Maximus the Confessor, (seventh cen-
tury,) who in his time wrote in the following manner
about the Roman Christians: — ^^ Adducing the testi-
mony of the Roman Fathers and of Cyril of Alexandria
(from his exposition on the Gospel of S. John), the
Romans do not affirm that the Son is the Cause of the
Spirit, for they know that the Cause of the Son and of
the Spirit is the Father of One by birth, and of the
Other by procession ; but only show that the Spirit is
sent through the Son, and thereby express the affinity
and the indifference of their essence.'^^ The Greeks re-
ceived this testimony of Maximus about the ancient
Romans with great pleasure. " If the Latins teach on
the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Ghost con-
formably with the testimony of Maximus,^' said the
Greek bishops, " then no further discussions are neces-
sary, and the former union of Churches can take place.''
The Latins, however, would not agree to this. They
' Mark's last idea is thus expressed : &AX* tva Kal di ainov irpoi4vai Koi.
raWj^ rh trwcup^s rTJs ovcrias koX iiirapdWaKrov vapourr'fiatoa'i. The mean-
ing of these words can be defined by the translation and explanation of
the Latin writer, Anastasius the librarian, (ix. c.) Zoemikoff, p. 409.
JOHN ON THE FILIOQTJE. 117
wanted to have the last word^ and demanded a cou-
tinuation of the Council sittings. It was very reluc-
tantly that the Emperor again appeared at the Council.
In order not to recommence the disputes^ he prohibited
the re-appearance of the two combatants for orthodoxy,
— Mark of Ephesus and Anthony of Heraclea.^
In the course of the last two solemn sittings (March
21 and 24), when John the Provincial, noticing the ab-
sence of his energetic opponent, obstinately demanded
Mark^s re-appearance, the Emperor answered this
boastful scholastic, "We do not wish to renew the
disputes at present ; this is why Mark is absent. We
have come here only to satisfy your demands. Say
what you will, we will give no answer.^^
Thus, during both the last sittings, John was the
only orator at the Council. In the first sitting he
quoted the testimonies of the Eastern Fathers and
Teachers, which, in his opinion, confirmed the doctrine
of the Church of Rome. In the last sitting, he, not so
much refuting as changing Mark's words, adduced the
words of the Eastern Fathers, apparently agreeable to
this doctrine. None of the Greeks said a word in re-
turn ; such was the Emperor's will. Only, towards the
end of the sitting, Isidore of Russia observed to John,
that he who remains alone on the course vainly thinks
himself conqueror, when there are no rivals to compete
with him.2
The solemn session ended. The Pope sent to the
Patriarch, saying, that as the Greeks had refused to
^ Syn. Flor. pp. 550 — 554. Dorotheas positiyely says that these two
Bishops were forbidden to re-appear at the Council, p. 654.
' Syn. Ilor. pp. 555, 562.
118 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
continue the disputes^ they must either express their
consent to the doctrine of the Church of Rome, or re-
turn home by Easter (April 5).^
CHAPTER VII.
SeOBET 1£EANS fob BECONOILINa THE G^BEEKS TO THE LaTIN DOOTBDnB
ON THE FlLIOQUE CLAUSE.
From about this time commences a tedious and
heavy struggle between the Emperor^s conscience and
the demands of the Latins ; between views of aiding his
empire and fears of falling under the general accusation
of treason to Orthodoxy. All hope of a true Christian
peace for the Church was lost. It was to be bought at
a bargain. How, then, could he give this bargain a more
honest appearance ? how could he give the least account
of it before his own Church, before his own people?
Such were the principal questions forming an uneasy
theme for the on all sides oppressed Emperor !
In the private sittings of the Greeks he said, " I am
the defender of the Church. The duty of a defender in
this case consists, firstly, in preserving and defending
the doctrine of the Church, in giving liberty to any
one wishing to defend it, and in keeping back persons
inclined to dispute and contradict; secondly, to keep
all our people in unity of spirit."^ At another time,
when the tired Greeks asked him to end the disputes as
soon as possible, he answered, ^^This depends not oft
3 Syn. Flop. p. 663. » Syr. viii 6.
THE EMPEROR^S DOUBTS. 119
me, but on the Church. If I act firmly, and any harm
happens, the general displeasure will fall upon me.
This is a Church affair, and requires great circumspec-
tion and a Church Council."^ When the Pope and
Cardinals hurried him on to conclude peace, he again
answered, " I am no lord over the Council ; I desire no
forced union.^^^
Thus spoke and thus apparently acted the Emperor,
deciding upon nothing without the Bishops^ advice, and
in the meantime using different means to attain the
object he had in view. He became very intimate with
the members most devoted to the union — Bessarion of
Nice, Isidore of Russia, and Gregory the Syncellus.
With these he took counsel, and by means of them he
inclined the minds of the other members to his wished-
for aim.3
In order to understand the matter better, it is worth
noticing why these persons were so eager for an union
with the Church of Rome. Bessarion assured his friends
that he inclined to the Latin side, because he was per-
suaded by the number of testimonies which seemed to
confirm the Latin doctrine on the procession of the Holy
Ghost. But we have seen how signal a victory was
gained over these false arguments by Mark of Ephesus.
The learned Bessarion could not but feel this also, for
he did not contradict Mark, neither did he ask him to
solve his misunderstandings. If he had been sincerely
attached to his old faith, then surely it would not have
been so easy a matter for him to change it. No ! it
was no love of truth, but other objects in view, that
prevailed upon him to side with the Latins ; and most
y Syr. TiiL 7. « gy^^ j^op. pp. 590, 695. ^ Syr. viii. 4.
120 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
likely a wish to afford John pleasure, and a hope of
honours from the Roman court. Very curious is his
opinion of one of the former defenders of the Latin doc-
trine, Nicetas of Thessalonica, who nevertheless deemed
the addition to the Creed an unjust one. He avowed,
wrote Bessarion, the conclusion a just one, (i. e., that
the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son,) but disputed,
we may say, about an ass's shadow, asserting that even
what is true ought not to be added to the Creed. A
proof of deep religious feeling and wisdom ! Does the
irony of his words testify to his love of truth ? But
this is exactly what he wrote in his letter to Alexis Las-
caris, in which he explains his motives for agreeing
with the Latins.^ Isidore himself remarked to John
the Provincial, during the last sitting, that his argu-
ments, to which no answer was given, do not give him
the right of claiming a victory over the Greeks; and
notwithstanding, immediately, after the close of the
session, was the first to vote for the Latins. Plainly
enough, in this case also, it was not persuasion in the
truth that impelled Isidore to act as he did, but wishea
and hopes similar to those nourished by Bessarion. As
to Gregory y who afterwards ascended the throne of the
miserable Patriarch Joseph, this is what he says of
himself in moments of sincerity: "I know that, if we
join the Latin Church, we shall be cursed, yes, even
before we get to Venice ; if even we do not join, we
shall still be cursed. At all events, it is better to join,
and then bear the curse.'^^ Such were the persdns sur-
rounding John !
When those who were displeased at the turn affedrs
^ Allat. de perpet. consens. pp. 705, 930. ^ Syr. ix. 6.
GREEKS WiklTTNG AT FLORENCE. 121
bad taken asked the Emperor^s leave to return home^ he
would not allow any one to go out of the town,^ accused
them of pusillanimity^ of indifference towards the general
good ; threatened them with his anger.^ In the private
meetings he pointed out to the Greeks the advantage of
concluding peace^ referred to his own labours^ the ex-
ample of former times ; at one time asking civil officials
to the council and demanding their opinions, at other
times prohibiting them to vote.
In the meantime the Pope, instead of all the comforts
promised by him to the Greeks, kept them longer than
he did at Ferrara waiting for the promised help. Ever
since their arrival «.t Florence, (Feb. 8,) they had not
received a penny till the 22nd of May,^ and then only
two months^ allowance was paid them. The rest of the
money was paid down after the last decree on the
union was signed.* Christopher, the distributor of the
Papal largesse, even had the impudence to order that
nothing should be given to Mark of Ephesus. "He
eats the Pope^s bread,^' said Christopher, " and opposes
the Pope.''5
Such was the condition of the Greeks, when the
means of bringing about an union with the Church of
Bome were being discussed. The notice given by
the Pope was very short.® On Monday in Holy
Week (March 30), the Emperor summoned a council
in the apartments of the invalid Patriarch. Before it
•
1 Syr. viii. 4. ^ Syr. viii. 7 ; ix. 1.
* Syr. viii. 6 ; ix. 2. 1,208 florins were given for two months.
< Syr. X. 3, 17. ^ Syr. ix. 2.
* I^ot more than twelve days had elapsed since the last Council sit-
ting (March 24) till Ea«ter (April 5).
G
122 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
took place^ the Greeks looked over the books referrfed
to by the Latins. ^ As soon as the discussion about the
union commenced^ Isidore of Russia was the first to
give in his vote. " It is better/^ said he, " to join
the Latins heart and soul, than to return without
having finished the work in hand. Of course we caii
return, but how to return — whither — when?^' Bes-
sarion defended Isidore's opinion. But Dositheus of
Monemvasia, Yicar of the throne of Jerusalem, replied
with warmth, " What is it you want to do ? To return
home at the Pope's expense, and turn false to our doc-
trine ? I would sooner consent to die, than receive the
Latin faith.'' Isidore tried to persuade him, that not
only the Western but the Eastern Fathers admit the
procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son. Anthony
of Heraclea, Vicar of the Alexandrian throne, objected,
that the Councils and all the Greek Fathers teach that
the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father alone.
But Mark, daring more than the rest, proclaimed that
the Latins were not only schismatics, but heretics.
^' Our Church," said Mark, " has kept silence on this,
because the Latins are more powerful and numerous
than we are ; but we, in fact, have broken all ties with
them, for the very reason that they are heretics.^ Peace
with them can be renewed only on their rejecting the
addition to the Creed, and receiving our doctrine on
» Syn. Flor. p. 562.
^ Michael, Patriarch of Constantinople towards the end of the
twelfth century, writes : '* It would be just to anathematise the Latias,
and call them heretics. But the Orthodox Fathers have mitigated the
sentence ; they have only cut off and abjured the Latins, but haye not
openly declared them heretics, neither have they adjudged them to the
same punishment with heretics." Allat. de consens. EccL p. 617.
HOLY WEEK. 123
the procession of the Holy Ghost/^ "How, then,
wilt thou answer the testimonies of the Latin Fathers
adduced by the Latins?^* asked the Emperor. Mark
answered, " I am not certain whether they really are
the words of holy Fathers. We have none of their
writings." Afterwards, while speaking on the same
subject, Mark added, " that the Latin testimonies of the
Fathers must be compared with the testimony of Maxi-
mus the Confessor on the belief of the Church of Rome,
and also with the testimonies of the (Ecumenical Councils"^
Thus, even at the very commencement of discussions
on the union, a division took place between the parties
discussing ! Three Vicars of three Eastern Patriarchates
stood firmly for Orthodoxy. They were joined by other
bishops, though not all, and even by some of the civil
ofiSicials surrounding the Emperor.
During Holy Week and Easter the Greeks had
three more assemblies on the same subject, and with
the same success. Some sided with Bessarion and
Isidore, as, for instance, Dorotheas of Mitylene, who
from this time became a strenuous upholder of the
union.2 But the Orthodox side was stronger than the
opposition. This is why the Emperor, on Friday in
Easter Week, (April 10,) sent to tell the Pope that the
Greeks would no longer continue the disputes, and could
1 Synod. Mor. pp. 563, 568. Syr. viii. 2.
> It is true that Dorotheus mentions that, during the third assemhly
in the Patriarch's apartments, all had nearly agreed to his proposal of
union with the Latins, on the foundation of the testimonies of the Latin
Fathers, and the words of Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople. But
this is contradicted hy the circumstance of the Emperor's afterwards
asking the Pope to point out some means of reconciliation. Syn. Flor.
p. 569.
g2
124 HISTORY or THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
find no means for a reconciliation : " If you can think of
any means^ tell us; but we have said^ and say^ that
the doctrine taught by us is the tradition of the Fathers
and the (Ecumenical Councils/^ ^
The Pope requested the Greeks to state their misun-'
derstandings on the doctrine of the Church of Bome^
and to hear an answer to them by the Latin divines;
"or else if you wish/^ said the Pope, '^let every one
before the Gospel, or before the Blood and Body of
Christ frankly divulge his opinions : and then, what shall
be found just by the majority, shall be universally re-
ceived/^ But to agree to the first proposition was the
same thing as recommencing the disputes. The last
part of the proposal seemed to be something out of the
common, as it was never heard of at the former Councils.
Thus on the same day, the Emperor and the Council of
the Greeks, having refused the first proposition renewed
their demands for other means to bring about the union.^
The Pope promised to send his Cardinals to speak on
this subject with the Greeks. In expectation of these
counsellors, Bessarion of Nicsea and George Scholarius
presented to the Greek assembly their own opinions
upon the subject of dispute between the Greeks and
Latins, and on the present position of Greek affairs.
Bessarion began his long speech by saying, that Eastern
and Western Bishops being led by one and the same
Spirit cannot contradict each other, and concluded from
this, that when contradictions are to be met with in
their writings, they must be reconciled, by determining
1 Synod. Flor. pp. 566, 569. Syr. viii. 2. Syropulus refers only to
those assemblies which were held in the Emperor's presence.
2 Synod. Flor. pp. 569, 574. Syr. viii. 8.
^ESBABTON FOB THE UNION. 125
the sense of obscure passages by those more clear. But^
among the Western Fathers, continued Bessarion, we
find many plain allusions made of the Spirit^s proces-
sion from the Son. The Eastern Fathers sometimes
say^ that the Holt Ghost appears, emanates, proceeds
from the Father through the Son, is the Spirit of Both,
is from the Son. All these expressions, concluded Bes-
sarion, must be understood as agreeable to the doctrine,
contained, as he thought, in the writings of the Latin
Fathers and Church Teachers. Their very words he did
not quote, deeming, as he affirmed, what was said at the
Coundl satisfactory; though referring to the arguments
made use of by Mark of Ephesus, he did not examine or
reftite them, and used a very strange method of recon-
ciling the contradictions between the Easterns and
Westerns. For if no one doubts, that the Fathers of
the Eastern Church were the teachers of the Western
Fathers, if the former axe superior both in age and
learning, and on account of their labours in the develop-
ments of the doctrine of faith, then evidently it is not
the Eastern Fathers are to be explained by the Latin
ones, but vice versd. Bessarion even blamed Mark for
not answering some of the Latin questions at the Coun-
cil.^ Scholarius^ speeches, even if they have not come
down to us in their original form, as the Latins them-
selves avow, contained exhortations for peace to be
founded not on any interested motives, but on truth
^ Syn. Hor. t. iL pp. 187, 274. In order to understand rightly the
psBsageB taken by Bessarion from the writings of the Fathers of the
Eastern Church, we must refer our readers to Adam Zoemikoff's work.
There the author proves, that the Western Fathers of the first eight
centuries taught agreeably with the Eastern that the Holy Ghost pro-
ceeds £rom the Fatheb alone. Tractatus iv.
126 HISTORY OF THE C0T7NCIL OF FLORENCE.
universally acknowledged; they also pointed out the
means of doing away with the objections against the
truth^s open confession^ and to some of the means of
defining it.^
On the 15th of April three Cardinals, with several
Bishops and Abbots came to the Council from the Pope.
Cardinal Julian spent two hours in trying to prove to the
Emperor the necessity of recommencing the discussions.
The Emperor would not comply. After several disputes
on this subject, it was agreed to appoint a committee of
twenty members, ten from each side, to lay down the
doctrine of the Holy Ghost's procession in such a form,
as might be received both by the Latins and the Greeks.
The members of the committee were to assemble in the
Papal palace, and each of them in turn was to give his
opinion in the course of eight sittings.
On receiving the Pope's assent to this discussion, the
Emperor appointed Anthony of Heraclea, Mark, Isidore,
Dositheus of Monemvasia, Bessarion, and others, as
members of the committee; and himself was present
also during its sittings. It was hard to suppose that
the committee would agree in the choice of the means
for a reconciliation, after disagreeing, with each other on
dogmatical principles. Bessarion proposed, that the
same expressions should be used which had been for-
merly used by Maximus the Confessor, in his epistle to
Marinus, to explain the Latin doctrine on the proces-
1 We mean the three speeches aficribed to George Scholorias, and
usually found in the Appendix to the acts of the Council of Morenoe, in
the form of one entire speech. Syn. Mor. t. ii. pp. 28 — 186. As to the
epistle preceding the speeches, also ascribed to Scholarius, it is eridently
not authentic. Yide on this the Dissertation of Benaudot, de Qennadio
Scholar, in Fabr. BibL Gtrac. Ed. Harles. xi. p. 864 and 371.
▲ COMMITTEE OF TEN. 127
sion. But the Latins found that these words ccmtained
a meaning directly contrary to the doctrine of the
Eastern Church. Others adduced as an example the
epistle of Tarasius^ Patriarch of Constantinople^ where
it was said that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the
Father throi^h the Son. But the Latins on getting
to know that the Greeks distinguish ha fi*om kx, ob-
jected to these expressions. Mark^ always true to his
persuasion^ said on this occasion : " Let the Latins do
away with the addition made by them to the Creeds and
then the union of Churches can take place.'' ^
But the Latins would not even listen to this propo-
sition. Thus^ the sittings of the committee were spent
in vain disputes^ so that the Greeks after two meetings
refused to come any more to the Papal palace. The
Latins however obliged them to attend three more meet-
ings^ which as usual were without any result.^
Soon after, the Latins sent their own formula
or exposition of the subject disputed to the Greeks.
They proposed, that both parties should explain their
doctrine in the following form : " We Greeks do pro-
claim that, though we admit the procession of the Holy
Ghost from the Father, still we do not deny that the
Holy Ghost proceeds and receives from the Son, as
from the Father; but forasmuch as we have heard
that the Latins avow the procession of the Holy Ghost
from the Father and the Son, as from two principles,
^ ASberwaxda, when Bessarion began to slander Mark, as consenting
to the Latin doctrine, and only demanding the rejection of the addition
to the Greed, — ^Mark gave an explanation quite contrary to this idea.
Syrop. yiiL 16.
3 Synod, ilor. 580—583. Syrop. viii. 11, 12.
128 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
for this very reason have we avoided this expression.
But we Latins do affirm that^ though we avow the pro-
cession of the Holt Ghost &om the Father and the
Son, still we do not deny that the Father is the source
and origin of all Divinity, i.e., the Son and the Holy
Ghost ; in like manner, avowing the procession of the
Holy Ghost from the Son, we do not deny that the
Son has this from the Father, and do not admit two
principles or two proceedings of the Holy Ghost, but
one origin and one procession.^'i Two days later the
Latins sent in their exposition of the dogma also.
When this exposition was read before the Council of
Greek Bishops, it was indignantly rejected by nearly all
of them, excepting the real apostates of orthodoxy, such
as Isidore, Bessarion, Dorotheus of Mitylene, Gregory
the almoner : " How are we to receive," said the ortho-
dox, ^^ this exposition directly contrary to the doctrine
of our Church?" The Latin partizan Bessarion again
took up his favourite theme, and endeavoured to prove
that the expressions found in the works of the Greek
Fathers, such as — through the Soriy are quite identical with
the Latin /rom the Son, i.e., that the Son is the cause of
the procession of the Holy Ghost as well as the Fa-
ther, though the Latins themselves, as we have seen
above, did not look upon these expressions as identical.
Mark of Ephesus opposed to Bessarion the words of S.
John Chrysostom, who, admitting the procession of the
^ Syropulus most likely quotes both this act and the Ghreek answer in
their original form, and in the Hist, of the Florentine Council only as
an epitome. Besides this Syropulus mentions the Latin objections to
the Greek answer. The authenticity of these acts in Syropulus is re-
ceived by Le Quien. Dissertat. Damasc. i. 27.
Ix AND hoc. 129
Spirit through the Son^ at the same time denies His
procession from the Son : and for this reason does not
admits that the Son is the cause of the Holt Ghost.
This is what S. John says : Hvevfua tou FlaTpos, mg Ix
IIctTpos BKiropwofi.evov, xa) Tlov $6 IlifevfMij oux dg If avTOv,
aXk* oog h' avTov ex tou Uarpog hxiropevouLevov, Movog yap
air log 6 IIoiTvip,^
More than one sitting was spent in unnecessary dis-
cussions on the Ix and hi. At last the Emperor re-
minded the assembly that an answer must be given to
the Latins. Isidore proposed that the treatise on the
Greek doctrine contained in the .exposition sent by the
Latins^ should be filled up with expressions found in the
writings of the Greek Fathers, and more agreeable to
the Latin doctrine. With this in view, he read several
passages from the work of one Latinizing Patriarch,
John Veccus, passages interpolated and wrongly ex-
plained by an upholder of the Church of Rome.^ Two
such passages were chosen : one from the acts of the
first (Ecumenical Council, compiled by Gelasius of Cy-
zicum; the other from the works of S. Cyril of Alex-
andria. The first, if read in the form given to it by
Veccus, stands thus : " The Holy Ghost proceeds from
the Father, but is as His own to the Son, and overflows
(ava/SXu^ov) from Him.''^ The second passage reads as
1 De Fide Orthod. Lib. i. cap. xii. Ed. Le Quien. p. 148.
* This work is called : 'Eiriypoupal, It is printed by Allatius in the
Grsec. Orthodoxa. t. iL p. 522. The passages alluded to are found in
the beginning of the book, p. 525, 526.
' Th Rytvfxa iierop€v6fi€Vov fihv ix rod Varphst tSioy 8^ rod Ttov kcJ i^
cArov iivafiX^foy* In the acts of the Council of Nice tliis passage stands
thus : 'EiaropevSfifVov filv rod Uarphs, tSiop 8i "by rod Tiod, "Ort 8^ i^
ahrod iifiiv ii,yafi\^oy iarl^ ffou^itrrara iv ^bayycXiots i^lda^ev avrhs 6
g3
130 HISTORY OP THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
follows : ^^ The Spirit essentially flows from Both, that is,
from the Father through the Son."^ When rightly un-
derstood, with the words avajSxu^ov and exvopevofLevov taken
in the sense of temporal mission, these passages can be
i*eceived by the Orthodox: thus, when the Emperor
demanded the general opinion on these passages, many
declared their assent to the doctrine contained in them.
But aU these expressions lacked dogmatical accuracy,
and this was why the defenders of orthodoxy were little
content with them. Notwithstanding this, the Emperor
ordered that the Greek doctrine on the Holy Ghost
should be expounded, -and drawn up in expressions re-
ceived by the majority. His orders were executed by
Scholarius.
In the exposition presented, the passage about the
Latin doctrine remained as before ; but the Greek doc-
trine was expressed in the very words of the above
mentioned expressions, thus : " We Greeks do believe
and confess, that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the
Father, but is as His own to the Son and flows out
(ava/SxtJ^ov) from Him ; we also affirm and believe that
He essentially flows from both, that is, from the Fa-
ther and through the Son.^* Thus, in this formula,
the Latin and the Greek party each retained its own
doctrine, without rejecting the contrary opinion. On
the formula being read before the Greek Council, the
Emperor again demanded to know the general opinion
K^pios .... Thus hvafixif^ov does not imply the eternal procession of
the Holy G-host from the Son, but His mission to us. Yecous omits
hlJuv, SeeZoemikoffin the Greek translation. T. i. p. 218, 219.
^ Lib. i. de adoratione, p. 9. See the explanation of this passage in
Zoemikoff. Tract, p. 836.
A NEW FORMULA. 131
on it^ and also sent to know the Patriarch's opinion^
who was then absent on account of his illness. Many
approved this exposition of faith^ and the Patriarch also^
at least as the messengers said^ gave in his vote for it.
But the three Vicars of the Eastern Patriarchates^ An-
thony^ Mark^ and Dositheus^ and with them several
Bishops^ and Syropulus^ rejected it. Anthony of He-
radea reminded the Emperor^ that he himself at the
commencement of the Florentine session had left the
Greeks the right of recommencing the discussions on
the addition to the Greedy whereas now he had given
up everything to the Latins. Dositheus implored the
Emperor to be more careful in what he did regarding
the faith^ and pointed out the miserable example of
Michael Palseologus. But John would listen to nothings
and in order to increase the number of votes favourable
to the formula^ ordered votes to be taken from the
reporters present at the Council^ at the proposal of the
Metropolitan of Lacedaemon and contrary to all rules.
Thus a majority of twenty-one against twelve passed
the exposition of faith^ compiled to please the Latins^
and given over to the Cardinals in the beginning of
May.i
The Latin party present at the Council deemed this
victory a very valuable one. But the Latins were not
content with this twofold exposition of faith^ and a
short time afterwards sent in twelve remarks on the
Greek confession of faith. One of these remarks was^
that the expressions exicopivofuevov and etmfi\6fyv have a
double meanings and can be referred to the temporal
^ According to our Kussian memoirs, this last assembly took place on
the 2nd of May. Ant. Biblioth. t. yi. treatise 42.
132 BISTORT OP THE COnNCIL DP PLORBNCE.
mission of the Holt Ghost from the Son, and conse-
qaeDtly demanded, that the Greeks should either receive
the Latin formula of coufesaion or correct their own
exposition of faith, changing the obscure and indefinite
expressions in it. The Emperor did not show these
remarks to the Bishops, but only mentioned, that the
Latins demanded some explanations to several of the
expressions in the Greek confession of faith.'
For along time afterwards, it seemed, that all efforts
for a reconciliation with the Latins wouU remain fruit-
less. The Bishops who had consented to the eipositiou
sent in by the Latins, now showed evident signs of dis-
contentment. " What else do the Latins require from
us ?" said they. " We wrote and presented our con-
fession of faith in espreBsious used by the Fathers. We
can do nothing more." Bull from inactivity, and
pressed by want, the Greeks began asking the £m>
peror's leave to return home ; but he kept them. The
meetings following were spent in the former discussions
on the ex and ha, on the authenticity oi not of the
Latin testimonies. But all these discussions were ever
without any resnlts, but those of mutual anger. An-
thony of Heraclea, an old man, who had not received
a learned education, biit was notwithstanding a warm
defender of Orthodoxy, and Mark of Ephesus were con-
tinually affronted by their Latinizing brethren. Once
even Bessarion publicly declared, that Mark was held
by an evil -spirit, while Dorotheus, with Methodius of
Lacedsemon threatened to tell the Pope, that Mark
look» twoiL the Roman Fontiff as a heretic. Anthony
and Mijfcapproved the objections of Nilus CavasUas
',' "'' '^ %'^- '"'■ 13, 16 i Synod. Flor. pp. 583— 588.
CONFERENCE WITH THE POPE. 183
againBt the Latin subtleties ; but Gregory the Confessor^
and Isidore of Russia^ called Nilus a schismatic^ and
bade Mark first curse him and then adduce his testi-
monies.
In the mean time the Latins were still expecting an
answer to their remarks. But the Emperor would not
answer. During an interview with the Pope he said :
^^ If you receive our confession of faith^ then let the
union come to pass. If not, we will return to Con-
stantinople/' At another time, in reply to some re-
proof made by the Pope on his inactivity, he said :
^' Of course we ought to have given an explanation of
our confession of faith ; but the most part of our Bishops
are in doubt of what is demanded of them, some through
ignorance, others because they cannot reject the doc-
trine received from the Fathers/' At last the Pope
persuaded the Emperor to send the Greek Bishops to
his palace, intending to have a personal interview with
them.
On the 27th of May the Bishops came. Receiving
them in the presence of nine Cardinals, the Pope re-
minded them of his efforts and earnest desire for the
union of Churches, at the same time turning their at-
tention to their slowness in performing his wishes both
at Ferrara and Florence ; he threatened to leave them
helpless if they did not bestir themselves to join the
Church of Rome, and bade them hope for aid from the
Christian monarchs in case of the union taking place.
Who knows, but that other more private and pleasant
promises were made by this principal upholder of the
union?
At all events, soon after this Papal exhortation.
134 HISTOBT OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
Isidore and Bessarion, together with the Metropolitans of
Lacedaemon and Mitylene^ came to the Emperor^ and
positively told him^ that^ ^^if he does not wish for the
union, they will unite without him/' This declaration
made a very strong impression on the Emperor, so much
so, that he ordered the Bishops to assemble for a dis-
cussion. ^On the 28th of May^ the Emperor opened
the meeting with a speech, in which he represented the
necessity of peace for the Churches, advising his hearera
at the same time to be very circuilispect in an alliance with
the Church of Rome. The Bishops then anathematized
all averse to the union. Then, at the demand of the
Patriarch, were read those passages from S. Epiphanius
and S. Cyril of Alexandria, in which the Latinizing
party thought they could see the consent of these Fa-
thers to the doctrine of Rome; these passages were
easily found in the same works of Veccus, from which
they had been before extracted. Repeating one pas-
sage after the other, without the beginning or end,
without even connecting them, Bessarion concluded:
" so say the saints in many places !^' Dorotheus then
read the testimonies of the Latin Fathers.
On the next day, the reading of the Fathers of the
Eastern Church was continued, namely, S. Athanasius,
1 Syn. Flor. p. 689—601 ; Syr. ix. 1, 6. In the History of the Coun-
cil of Florence, many meetings held between the 2nd and 28th of May
are not mentioned. But Syropulus speaks of them, though he, in his
turn says nothing about the Papal address to the Bishops.
^ In mentioning the details of this and the subsequent meetings, in
which the union with the Church of Bome was decided upon we are
principally guided by Syropulus. Dorotheus' history is evidently par-
tial to the Latins. Both narratives however agree pretty well in essen-
tial points.
VOTES FOR THE FILIOQUE. 185
Cyril of Alexandria^ Gregory of Nyssa^ Epiplianius^
Anastasius the Sinaite^ John Damascene^ and the eon-
dusion made was^ that all these Fathers admit the
procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son.^
On the third day (May 80) yotes were collected in
favour of the Latin doctrine. The Bishops asked the
Patriarch to vote the first. Joseph was loth to consent.
At last he gave in his vote^ but his very vote was so capable
of two meanings^ that many thought that he rejected the
Latin doctrine. Then followed the votes of the Bishops
and Hegumens. Out of twenty-seven present^ ten voted
for the union: seventeen against it. Among those
who would not consent to it^ were the three Patriarchal
Vicars^ Mark of Ephesus^ Anthony of Heraclea^ and
Dositheus of Monemvasia; the Metropolitans of Tre-
bizond^ Cyzicum^ Tomovo^ Moldovlachia^ Amasea^ Me-
lenicus^ Drama^ Drystra^ and Anchialus. Thus it seems
that most of the Bishops were not persuaded by the
lengthened readings of Bessarion and his party. The
Chartophylax^ Ecclesiarch^ and other persons in the
Patriarch^s service (among whom were many strenuous
opponents of the union) were not even asked for their
opinions^ and were also prohibited voting in the Council^
under the plea of their being a degree lower than the
Hegumens. The Emperor even wished to hear the
opinion of the civil officials in his suite^ but was opposed
in this by the Patriarch.
* Neither Syropulus nor Dorotheus mention what were the very words
taken from the writings of any of these Fathers. This is why we can-
not show here, how partial was the rendering of the passages, in which
nothing at all was said to the advantage of the Latins. A list of these
pafsages may be seen in 2ioemikoff.
136 BISTORT OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
The Latinizing party, seeing how few were the votes
for the union, betook themselves to other means. The
Patriarch was persuaded to invite some of the opposing
Bishops to his palace and there to entice them to the
union. Isidore of Russia even proposed to* cut off the
disobedient from the Church; but the Patriarch re-
jected his plan as one which would be of no good to the
union. Instead of this, Joseph invited the Metropolitans
of Moldovlachia, Tomovo, and Amasea to his palace^
and there reproved them gently on their ingratitude and
disobedience. ^' Why do you not listen to me V said
Joseph. ^^ Was it not from my cell that you came out?
Was it not I who raised you to the rank of Bishops?
Why then do you betray me ? Why did you not second
my opinion ? Think you, then, you can judge better
than others about dogmas ? I know, as well as any-
body else, what the Fathers taught.'^ The Bishops
replied that, disagreeing with the Latins in the disputed
doctrine, they thought of expressing the opinion of the
Patriarch himself, understanding his words in the sense
of a refusal to admit the Latin doctrine. But the Pa-
triarch, in his turn, noticed that they had better have
entered into the real meaning of his words, and expressed
more clearly what they had heard rather obscurely.
When dismissing them, Joseph advised them to follow
his opinion, which he promised to explain more fully in.
the following sitting. The Patriarch also had an in-
terview with Mark, and intreated him in the name of
all the Saints, and for the sake of his father^s memory,
to agree to the union with the Church of Borne. But
this venerable man remained firm against all entreaties.
He had already been asked to agree to union, even if it
MARK STANDS FIRM. 137
were apparently for the sake of others. His answer
was : ^' In deeds of faith there must be no concessions^
no waverings/' And when the diflference between the
two confessions was shown as insignificant^ Mark an-
swered : '^ You speak just like the prefect, who intreated
Theodorus to receive heretics into communion only
once^ and then to act as he liked/' The saint answered :
" Thy request is like, as if a person said, Allow me to
cut your head off, and then you may go wherever you
like/'^ Following up this example, Mark remained firm
to the end.
At the same time, the Emperor by means of various
promises had managed to gain over to his cause several
of the Bishops, and the envoys from Trebizond and
Moldovlachia, and even made the Metropolitan of
Cyzicum waver, by making him a present of some land
he had been longing for, Isidore, in the meantime,
prepared a splendid repast for the Metropolitans of
Melenicus, Drystra, Drama, and some others, and at
table obtained their consent to the union.
While guaranteeing his success in reconciling the
Greeks to an union with the Church of Rome, the Em-
peror wished also to make himself certain of the Pope's
aid, should the union take place. Isidore, sent by him
to the Pope on this business, returned with three Cardi-
nals, who, in the Pope's name, assured him that the
Pope (a) agrees to pay the return voyage of the Greeks ;
(b) promises to keep three hundred soldiers at Constan-
tinople, and two galleys in the Bosphorus, at his own
expense ; (c) agrees to enforce it as a duty that all pil-
grims to the East should call at Constantinople; (d)
1 Syr. k. 6.
138 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
in case of great necessity is ready to send the Emperor
twenty galleys for half a year's time^ or ten galleys for
a year; (e) and lastly^ if need be, will try to invite the
European monarchs to give their aid to the Greek Em-
pire by means of their land forces.
After these preliminaries, the Emperor convoked a
second meeting (2nd of June)^ to make a final decision
Bs to the admission of the Latin dogma and the union
with the Church of Rome. In this meeting the Patri-
arch was the first to give his opinion, which, if it has
come down to us rightly, was as follows : ^' I will not
change, and never wiU I reject our doctrine handed
down by the Fathers, but will sustain it till my last
breath. But, whereas the Latins do avow the Proces-
sion of the Most Holy Spirit &om the Son, not of
their own accord, but on the foundation of Holy Scrip-
ture, therefore do I also agree with them, expressing by
the preposition $ia, that the Son is the Cause, and
therefore also do I join and enter into union with
them/'
The Patriarch afterwards made a written declaration
of his opinion, viz.: "Whereas we have heard the
words of the Holy Eastern and Western Fathers, of
whom some say, that the Son proceeds from the Father
and the Son ; and others, from the Father through the
Son ; therefore, as the expression, ^ through the Son,' is
equivalent to ^from the Son,' and vice vers&, — ^we,
omitting the expression, from the Son, say, that the
Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father through the
Son ever and essentially, as from One Principle and
Cause, using 'hi' to express the cause of the Holy
* Syr. ix. 9. Vide History of the Council of Florencei June 3rcL
THE GREEKS YIELD. 139
Ghost's Procession/'^ Having explained his opinion^
the Patriarch made another remark^ that the Latins
should not demand the insertion of the Filioque clause
into the Greek Creed. After the Patriarch, the Vicars
of the Eastern Patriarchates, and the other Metropo^
Utans and Hegnmens, gave in their opinions. The
union party rapidly increased. Only three Patriarchal
Vicars — Mark of Ephesus, Anthony of Heraclea, and
Dositheus of Monemvasia, together with Sophronius,
Metropolitan of Anchialus, remained steadfastly true to
the Orthodox doctrine. Dositheus of Trebizond, who
was not present at the Council on account of illness,
gave no opinion at all, notwithstanding his opinion was
very much demanded. The Emperor's brother, Deme-
trius, also refused to give in his vote, under the plea,
that he was not well informed on this affair, and was
loth to meddle in it. Ten days afterwards he left the
Council. The Emperor refusing to allow the Clergy
occupying different offices round the Patriarch to give
their votes, nevertheless demanded the opinions of his
own civil officers, not excepting the Lord of the bed-
chamber. All of them agreed to the union ; so did also
the envoys of Moldovlachia, Trebizond, and Pelopon-
nesus. The Georgian envoys, both Bishop and civilian,
had already left Florence, as soon as they guessed the
Emperor's plan of union with the Church of Rome.
^ SyropuluB says plainly that the Patriarch's opinion was mostly
thns written down, ix. 9. In the History of the Council of Florence it
is also quoted word for word, being a proof of Syropulus' testimony,
that this opinion was written down. We haye reasons to think that
Syropulus is more correct in referring this circumstance to the present
sitting rather than to the former ones.
140 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
At last^ the Emperor himself gave his opinion to th
Council. He said^ that looking upon this Council
(Ecumenical^ he would abide by its decision^ and that
of the majority of its members^ and is ready to defend
its decision. Thus^ the first foundation for the union
with the Church of Rome was confirmed by the decree
of the Council. ^
1 Syr. ix. 12 ; Syn. Mor. pp. 601—620. We wiU give our readew
some details of this sorrowful event, quoting the very words of the
venerable Mark of Ephesus. In his Epistle '* on the Florentine Coun-
cil," he writes : " The traitors to their own salvation were not content
till they obtained a public confession of the Latin Creed in an assembly
convoked and honoured by the presence of the Emperor, Patriarch, and
Despot. Adducing passages from the works of the Western Teachers
and the great S. Cyril, apparently &vourable to Latinism, and after hav-
ing before this attacked me one by one with their sophistries, they then
asked the members present at the Council what they thought of the ad-
duced passages, and whether they avow the Son a Cause of the Holy
G-HOST. The members answered that they did not doubt the authenti-
city of these passages, relying on the Epistle of the divine Maximus ;
but most of the members refused to admit the Son as the Cause of the
Spibit (according to these passages) because the wise Maximus also
gives the same opinion of these passages. But those who dared to say
anything bad, tempted by different boastful promises, would listen to no
one, and declared that the Son is the Cause of the Holy G-host, — an
idea not even mentioned in the Latin quotations. Their words were con-
firmed by the miserable Patriarch, who was formerly favourable to them,
and was now impatiently awaiting his liberty, but vainly, for his lot
was death. I had written my opinion, or confession of fidth, for it was
agreed that every one should give in his opinion in writing. But when
I saw that they were very warm for the union, and that my former
companions fell into the same error with them, and that all had forgot-
ten to write down their opinions, I kept my writing to myself fiaaring
lest I should myself Ml into danger by provoking their anger. But I
boldly explained my opinion in words, and showed that the words of
the Eastern and Western Fathers can only be reconciled to each other
by means of the explanation given them in the Epistie of Maximus, i.e.,
THE EMPE&OR RECEIVES THE COUNCIL. 141
Before closing the assembly^ the Emperor declared^
that as the Council approves the doctrine of the Latin
Churchy and wishes for an anion with it, all contradic-
tion of the Council decree is prohibited, as well as every
renewal of the controversy, under pain of severe punish-
ment ; and immediately gave orders to his guards to look
after the peace of the members of the Council.^ The
opinions of the Bishops were written down. An extract
was made from all these opinions, in which it was said :
''We believe that the Holy Ghost is ever and essen-
tially from the Father and the Son, ever and essentially
proceeds from the Father through the Son.^' This
definition was written down in three copies, one of
which was taken by the Emperor, another by the Patri-
arch, and the third was presented to the Pope. But even
the new confession drawn up by the Greeks was not en-
tirely approved by the Latins. The Cardinals demanded
that the words, '' through the Son" should be omitted in
the confession. The Greeks disputed a long while
about this; but, at the desire of the Latins, were at
last obliged to change these expressions. The confession
was re-written, presented to the Pope, and approved by
him. On the 8th of June, the confession was read in
the presence of the Pope, in Greek and in Latin. As
that the Son must not be thought the Cause of the Sfibit. Besides
this, I noticed, with regard to the addition, that I did not approve of it
in the Latin Creed, as being an addition made without sufficient reason.
After this, they continued their business ; and I leaving them to them-
selves, iLspt and keep away &om everything, in order to consecrate all
my time to the Holy Fathers and Teachers." This letter is adduced in
extracts in the answer given to it by Joseph Metho. Syn. Flor. t. xi.
pp. 345—357.
1 Syr. ix. 13.
142 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
a sign of the approach of the times of peace^ between
the Churches^ the Latins gave the Greeks the kiss of
love.^
CHAPTER VIII.
Disputes on otheb Latik Doctrines. Death op the Patbubch.
FSOCLAMATION OP THE UnION OP ChITBCHES.
The kiss given by the Latins was not a brotherly, sin-
cere kiss of reconciled Christians. The Pope having
forced the Greeks into a consent to the Latin doctrine
on the Holy Ghost, wished moreover, that they should
admit the other new doctrines of the Church of Rome,
until then ever rejected by the Easterns. He said to
Isidore, Bessarion, and the Metropolitans of Trebizond
and Mitylene, who had been s«at to him by the Em-
peror (June 9) : *^ We have now by Gon^s grace, come
to an agreement on the disputed dogma. It still re-
mains for us to define the doctrine on Purgatory, on
the authority of the Papal throne, on the bread in the
Eucharist, and on the consecration of the Host. Then
every reason for disagreement will be done away with.
Let us then finish our business, which can bear no pro-
crastination/^
The Bishops immediately gave their explanation to
the Pope^s proposal. With regard to the bread in the
Eucharist, they prevailed on the Pope to admit of the
validity of the Eucharist, whether performed in leavened
or unleavened bread. In answer to the question on
Purgatory, they said : " We confess, that the souls of
1 Syn. Flor. pp. 621—^24.
PURGATORY AND THE INVOCATION. 143
good men receive the full reward^ and those of sin-
ners fuU punishment, whereas those in a middle con-
dition are subjected to agonies in prison ; but what is
the exact cause of their agonies^ whether it be fire,
or darkness, or anything else, we cannot positively
affirm/' With respect to the Pope's authority, they
answered, that the Pontiff of ancient Rome ought to
retain the rights he had before the division of Churches.
As to the consecration of the Host in the Eucharist, the
Greeks admitted, contrary to the doctrine of old, that
at the pronunciation of our Saviour^s words : ^^ Take,
eat/' &c., the bread and wine are immediately transub-
stantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ, and said,
that the prayer following this, in the Greek Liturgiarion
has reference only to the communicants. In this prayer
— said the apostates from Orthodoxy, quite contrary to
its real meaning — we beseech, that the Holy Ghost ^
should descend upon the communicants, and should in
them make the bread and wine the Body and Blood of
Christ, bo that the consecrated Host in the Sacrament
might cleanse their souls, to the forgiveness of their
eins, and not to judgment or condemnation. The
Greeks were also required to give an explanation wep)
ttlas ova-lag xa\ svepyelas, a doctrine upon which Mark
would not say a word at the Council. Even now the
Bishops would not give the desired explanation.^
The Pope not quite satisfied with the explanations
given by the Bishops, and wishing for a written answer
firom the Greek Council, set down his demands more
clearly in writing (the next day, June 10). He wished
^ See note at the end of the chapter.
2 Syn. Flor. p. 620—626.
144 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
the Greeks to admit all the privileges of the Pope as the
Vicar of Jesus Christ and Supreme PontiflF, and that
they should consequently admit the justice of the ad-
dition to the Creed, as one approved of by the Pope
himself; that they should admit the doctrine on Pur-
gatory, and generally speaking on the condition of souls
after death, in the very same terms in which it was
held by the Church of Rome; and lastly, that they
should examine the doctrine on the Divine essence and
action {irep) ielag ovclag xa) evepyela^). The Pope on his
part agreed 'to admit the validity of the Eucharist
when performed in leavened bread. But the Sishops,
afraid of fresh disputes, refused to bring a written ex-
position of the Papal demands, and only verbally in-
formed the Emperor and Patriarch of them. This was
before noon.
In the evening of the same day, it became known,
that the Patriarch Joseph was dead. According to Do-
rotheus^s History, it seems, that when all had assem-
bled in the Patriarch^s apartments, they were told by
the servants, that the Patriarch had retired to his
bedroom, as he was wont to do after his evening meal,
and had sat down to write there, but suddenly feel-
ing a sudden agitation, died. The Greeks took the
last will of the Patriarch, and found the following to
be its contents: ^^ Joseph, by God's grace Archbishop
of Constantinople, New Rome, and (Ecumenical Pa-
triarch. Whereas I have attained the limits of my
life, and shall soon have to pay the universal tribute :
I do now with God^s help announce my opinion
to all my children. I do myself confess and agree to
everything held and taught by the Catholic and Apos-
DEATH OF THE PATRIARCH. 145
tolic Church of our Lord Jesus Christ^ the senior
Rome. I avow the Pope of the elder Bome^ to be
the blessed Father of Fathers^ the Supreme Pontiff and
Vicar of Christ. I certify this before all. I admit
the Purgatory of souls. In assurance of which it is
signed^ June 9, indict the 2nd, 1439 year.''^
Such is the strange description left to us of the Pa-
triarch's death and his last will, in the history of Do-
rotheus ! There are reasons however for doubting the
truth of this narrative. It is evident from the history of
Dorotheus, that the Patriarch died on the 10th of June.
For, describing the events of the last week spent by
the Greeks in Florence, day by day, he says plainly,
that, (a) the Greek exposition of the doctrine on the
Holy Ghost was received by the Pope on Monday, the
8th of June (rp huTepot, iovvlov oy^oji) ; (j6) that on the
Tuesday, he, Dorotheus, himself visited the Pope, as
did the other Bishops also; (y) that, on Wednesday
(tJI TtToprij) he was again with the Pope and heard
his last demands, which were afterwards stated to the
Emperor and the Patriarch {ohravru elvoiJisv olvtco, the
Emperor, ofjLolaos xat rm nuTpiotpxfi) . Immediately after
this Dorotheus adds : k<r7repa$ oiv i^vco fjLY}vv[Mi rihiev viiuv,
Tp auTjf TeripTrj, Aeyov, on IlaTpiig^rjg aTri&uve^ i.e., in the
evening on the same Wednesday we received the report
of the Patriarch's death.
Thus, plainly enough, the Patriarch died on Wednes*
day, and this Wednesday was the 10th of June. Syro-
pulus asserts the same. He writes: ^^the Patriarch
died suddenly, during the evening meal, on the 10th of
June, in the 2nd indict.''^ The Russian memoirs on
> Flop. Synod, p. 627—630, 2 gyr. i^. ig,
H
146 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
the Council refer the Patriarch's death to the 10th day
of June.^ How then is Joseph's will dated on the 9th
of June? How then could Dorotheus say, that it was
written by the Patriarch a very short while before his
death (r^v vpo ftix^oO yga^elcav yvoof/ktiv) ? How can the
following words dated the 11th of June, belong to the
Patriarch : xoti Xoi^ov 6 UuTpioLg^s atredavev hv ^Xoopevrlot
jxi^vi lovvlep, IvftTi}, IvhuTiaovog hvripa^ ? Dorotheus himself
mentions having seen the Patriarch alive before dinner
on the 10th. It is very evident, that the Patriarch's
will and the incorrect date of his death have been in-
troduced into Dorotheus' narrative by a later hand, and
most likely at the time, when Dorotheus' history was
republished : for in the Latin acts of the Council of
Florence the Patriarch's death is said to have taken
place on the 9lh, and not the 10th of June;^ whereas
Dorotheus' history in its original contained neither the
Patriarch's writing nor any false statements.
But, there are other reasons for doubting the authen-
ticity of the Patriarch's last will. No one present at
the Council knew anything about it. Syropulus even>
does not make any mention of it. He writes : '^ The
Patriarch said, that he would not remain long in Mor
rence after the signing of the definition {opov), and
would soon take his departure. Nothing of the sort
however happened, for he died and was buried before
the definition was signed."^ Cremistes Pletho and Amirtt"
1 Kicon^s Annals, r. 145. Stroeff's edition, part u. § 30. In the
Ancient Bibliotheca, vi. 60, the day of the month is the same, but in-
stead of June, April Ib named by mistake.
^ Hist. Chronolog. Patriarcharum Gonstantinopolitanorum in Actis
SS. Augusti. T. i. p. 185. n. 1119.
' Syp. ix. 16.
THE patriarch's WILL A FORGERY. 147
tiu8, who were both present at the Council, say the
same. Amirutius writes : " I affirm, that this Council
is not (Ecumenical, for how can it be called (Ecumenical,
when the Patriarch of Byzantium suddenly died before
the signatures were made?"^ Gemistes says: "No
one will call the Council held in Florence (Ecumenical,
for the Patriarch of Byzantium did not sign its decrees
on account of his sudden death.'' If Syropulus had
known about the above-mentioned will, he would not
have passed it over in silence, as silent he was not about
Joseph's other weak actions. If again the Patriarch's
will was known to Gemistes Pletho and Amirutius,
then they would not have rejected the dignity of the
Council of Florence, on account of its decree given in
the month of July not being signed by the Patriarch
who died in June ; the more so, if in the last testa-
mentary act supposed to have been made by him, he had
really affirmed more than that which was required by the
definition of faith, namely, agreed to everything taught
by the Church of Rome. And what reason again was
there for Joseph to give his opinion, when he was not
asked for it by the Emperor or Pope, and was him-
self so carefidly slow in acquiescing to the Papal
demands? Lastly, why, in the subsequent disputes
between the Latins and Greeks at the Council, is the
Patriarch's last Will never referred to, nor is it ever
mentioned in the Council decree, that the Patriarch had,
before his death, expressed his fiiU consent to everything
contained in the definition, whereas mention is made of
the Patriarchal Vicars ? For all these reasons an im-
partial history of the Council of Florence cannot look
^ Allat. de consensu Eccles. p. 908.
H 2
148 BISTORT OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
upon the Patriarch's will in any other light but that of
an unsuccessful forgery made by some Greek or Latin
to allure the Orthodox.^
On the next day the Patriarch was buried by the
Greek Bishops in the presence of the Latin Cardinals
and Bishops. His body was interred in the Church of
the Holy Mother of God (S. Marias Novellae), in ihe
Dominican monastery where the Pope then resided.
The Patriarch's death apparently made a deep im*
pression upon the Emperor. Remaining now the only
support of the Greek Council, he became still more
obstinate in refdsing the Papal demands, though not
from having been influenced by the Patriarch during
his lifetime to a more decisive mode of action, nei-
ther was it from losing just then a person, who by
his persuasions had dispelled the many obstacles op-
posing the quiet reconciliation of the Greeks with the
Latins. Such persons could always be found round the
Emperor; so that he was sick of their readiness to
agree unconditionally to all the Papal demands. No !
While Joseph was aUve, the emperor looked upon him
as the supreme Pastor of the Eastern Church, whose
duty was to give an account to his Church of all the
actions of the Greek Bishops at the Council. But now
that Joseph was dead, the Emperor saw that he was
himself answerable to the Church for all the intercourse
held with the Pope.
'As far as we ^now, this act besides being mentioned in the His-
tory of the Council, is abo found in Joseph Metho's written objection
to Mark's epistle. Concil. Flor. t. ii. p. 353. Joseph lived in the second
lialf of the fifteenth century. Fabr. Eibl. Or, xi. Ed. HarL p. 458.
A Hat, de consensu, p. 933.
PBOCEEDINOS AFTER THE FATBIABCH's DEATH. 149
On the very day of the Patriarch^s faneral^ the Em-
peror sent to the Pope asking him to bring matters to
a dose as soon as possible. The Pope calling Bessarion^
Isidore^ and Dorotheas of Mitylene^ repeated the de-
mands^ the fulfilment of which was^ in his opinion in-
dispensable^ for the peace of the Churches. They^ as
before^ gave their opinion. But the Emperor was dis-
satisfied with this^ and invited the whole of the Greek
Council to discuss the new demands of the Pope
(June 13). Some of the demands he would not even
pay attention to^ such as on purgatory and the conse-
cration of the Host in the Eucharist. The Council was
asked to decide the questions — on the wafer^ on the
Pope's authority, and on the addition to the Creed.
The Cardinals were also invited to the Council, and they
before anything else turned their attention to subjects
which had been left out in the list of the subjects
to be discussed in the Council, wishing to force the
Greeks to their own opinions. The Emperor would not
give in, so that two days passed in disputes about
subjects, on which none of the Greeks wished to dispute.
At last the Pope invited the Emperor, with several
Metropolitans, to his own residence, and there en-
deavoured to persuade them that the settling of the
proposed questions must, most certainly, be introduced
into the future Council-decree on the union of Churches-
At the same time he made them listen to long disserta-
tions on subjects which had not been as yet discussed in
the Council. John the provincial treated on the Pope's
authority, and Ambrose Traversari spoke about the
consecrated wafer. ^^ All is now settled,'' said the Pope
at the end of the discussions ; ^^ we have only to write
150 HISTORY OF TItB COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
the exposition of faith ;'^ and then gave the Emperor a
list of the subjects to be introduced into the definition^
expecting the Greeks to give an answer to them. The
Emperor would not take the papers^ and only continued
sayings ^^It is no use our talking any more; the Cardinals
have said all that Was wanted ; it is time for us to de-
part/^ Hurt by this answer, the Pope left the assembly
in great dissatisfaction. The papers were, however,
taken by the Greeks.
On looking over the Papal demands at home, the
principal agents in the cause of the union told the Em-
peror that they found the demands just and quite con-
formable with their own ideas.^ But the Emperor,
having before noticed the adulation paid by them to the
Pope, lost all his confidence in them. In a private as-
sembly of his fiishops he complained of the Pope and
his own coadjutors.^ " See what obstinate persons they
are,'' said he of the Latins; "they always choose to
have their own way. I know, however, who favours their
obstinacy. If some of our own people did not encourage
the Latins to be as obstinate as possible in their de-
mands, they would not have used such great efforts to
obtain our consent to all their proposals.'' At another
time the Emperor avowed before the Bishops, "that the
Greeks had already conceded to the Latins more than
what was right. The Latins ought to be contented,
and accomplish the union of Churches. But they care
very little about peace, and only increase the number
of their demands. If the Pope will not rest contented
with what we have agreed to, then we have only to hire
ships of the Florentines and go home."
1 Syn. Flor. 631, 638. s ^p. x. 8.
BIGHTS OF THE POPE. 151
John, dissatiseed with the persons surrounding him,
tried to win over Mark of Ephesus ; commissioned him
to make an exposition of the doctrine of the Eastern
Church on the Eucharist;^ and assembling those Patri-
archal yicars and Metropolitans who were more inclined
to the uniouj endeavoured by means of them to persuade
this firm man to consent to the general union. But
Mark valued truth beyond all things, and ever remained
faithful to it.3
One question beyond the rest could not be settled
agreeably to both parties, — the question on the authority
of the Pope. The Pope once more assembled the Eastern
Bishops to show them the foundation of the oecume-
nical rights of his throne,— rights and privileges never
admitted by the East, and at that time even opposed by
many in the West. While in the Pope's apartments
the Bishops seemed to be persuaded in the justice of
his demands; at home, after comparing what they had
heard with the canons of the Church, they again re-
tracted their consent and were quite at a loss how to
agree. After various disputes they, at last, admitted
all the privileges of the Papal throne, excepting the right
of convoking (Ecumenical Councils without the Em-
peror's consent, and that of judging the Patriarchs in
case of complaint being lodged against them. The Pope
however rejected these exceptions, declaring that he
wished to retain all the privileges of his throne, such as
those of receiving and examining complaints made against
the Patriarchs, of convoking Councils when he found
them necessary, of exacting the Patriarchs' Aill sub-
mission to his will ; in a word, the right of governing
1 Syr. X. ^ • Syn. Flop. p. 539, 641.
152 HISTOBT OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
the whole Church. When the Cardinals announced the
Pope^s decision to the Emperor, instead of any answer
he merely said, "Make all the arrangements neces-
sary for our departure.'^
This happened on the eve of the Church anniversary
of the birth of S. John the Baptist. " The festival/^
says Dorotheus of Mitylene, "celebrated with such
pomp by the Florentines was fast approaching. But we
were sad at heart, seeing no prospects of an union
taking place. Nevertheless,^' coolly continues the same
writer, " God the Provider of all did not forsake us ;
but raised the Russian, the Nicene, and the Mitylenian,
with several others, to try what they could do." Some
of these persons inclined the Pope, and others prevailed
upon the Emperor to agree to this last step, viz., to
appoint four persons from among the Greeks and the
Latins to discuss again upon the disputed subject. And
though not publicly in the assembly, still the Greeks at
last agreed to write, that they admitted the Pope as
Supreme Pontiff, Vicar of Christ Jesus, Pastor and
Teacher of all Christians, who governs God's Church,
with the rights and privileges of the Eastern Patriarchs,
so that the Patriarch of Constantinople is second to
him; then comes the Patriarch of Alexandria; after
him that of Antioch ; and lastly, the Patriarch of Jeru-
salem. In this form the point was admitted by the
Pope. The object of all his wishes was at length at-
tained on the 27th of June.^
Agreeing on the principal conditions of peace, the
Latins and Greeks hastened to publish a decree on the
union of Churches. Deputies from both sides were
» Syn. Mor. p. 641, 645.
BIGHTS OF THE POPE. 153
chosen for this purpose. A dispute^ however^ arose
at the very beginning of the work. The Latins wanted
to place the Fope^s name first in the decree. Pa-
laK>logas for his part demanded his own name to be
prefixed. At last it was decided to add^ " with the Em-
peror's consent/' to the Pope's words. Several expres-
sions in the clause on the Papal authority also gave rise
to some disputes. The Latins wrote : " The Pope is to
retain his rights according to the doctrine of Scripture
and the Holy Fathers.'' The Emperor insisted that
this expression should be changed. ^^If one of the
Fathers," he said, " gives the Pope an honourable title,
does that mean, that he admits the special privileges of
the Roman Bishop?" After many disputes, the Pope
at last consented to have the expression changed, so that
instead of the expression, ^^ according to the words of
the Fathers," another word was inserted, " according to
the rules of the (Ecumenical Councils and the Holy
Fathers." The Latins also found out something in
the decree which required correcting. The defini-
tion said: '^retaining all the rights and privileges of
the four Patriarchates." The Latins wanted the word
" all," to be omitted. The Greeks would not consent
to this, and the word " all" was retained. At last when
both parties found nothing else in the decree wanting
correction, it was finally transcribed into Greek and
Latin. Isidore and Bessarion proposed that a list of
anathemas should be added in the decree against all
opposing the union ; very likely having Mark of Ephesus
in view. But the Emperor would not allow this.^
* Syn. ilor. p. 647 — 652 ; Syr. x. 5. The decree was written in Latin
by Ambroae Trayersari and translated into G^reek bj Bessarion.
154 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
The day was fixed^ when the signing of the decree
should take place. Dorotheas of Mitylene proposed to
the Pope beforehand, to bribe over some of those who
had not as yet consented to the union, and bribes were
in fact resorted to.^ On the 5th of July the whole
Council of the Easterns assembled in the Emperor's
palace. The Emperor was the first to sign the decree.
The Metropolitan of Heraclea was absent on account
of his illness, but was even obliged to sign the decree in
his bed. No one thought of disturbing Mark of Ephesos,
being convinced of his firmness. Isidore, Bessarion, and
the Protosyncellus, joyfully signed their names. Then
followed the signatures of the Metropolitans of Monem-
vasia, Cyzicum, Trebizond, Nicomedia, Tomovo, Mity-p
lene, Moldovlachia, Amasia, Rhodes, Drystra, Gana,
Melenicus, Drama, Anchialus, and those of eleven persons
from the lower grades of the Constantinopolitan clei^.
The Greeks signed without reading the decree before-
hand. Its contents were only known to those who had
drawn it up.^ At all events, most of the Greek Bishops
conceding to the Pope^s wish, and the Emperor's will,
gave a written, though reluctant, consent to the unjust
union. Even those who were not allowed to vote at the
Council, were now made to sign. Exceptions were only
made for those who had either died, as the Patriarch
Joseph, and the Metropolitan of Sardis, or those who
had managed to get away from Florence, as was
done by Isaiah of Stauropol and the Bishop of Tver.'
1 Syr. X. 4. 2 g^j., x. 19.
3 Syr. ix. 12 ; x. 8. In one of the Qreek manuscripts of the Moscow
Synodal Library (N. xiii.) among the names signed, we do not find
those of the Metropolitans of Trebizond and Cyzioum. Most likely
THE FALSE UNION. 155
When all the Greek Bishops^ in the presence of the
Cardinals^ had affixed their signatures to the Council
decree^ then the Emperor sent ten of the eldest Bishops
to witness the signing of the decree by the Pope. Eu-
genius^ after carefully examining the signatures of the
Greek Bishops^ asked while himself signed the decree^
whether the Ephesian had signed? He was told that
he had not. '^ Then nothing have we done/' involun-
tarily exclaimed the Pope. Eight Cardinals signed
their names after the Pope^ about sixty Bishops^ and a
good many Abbots.*
The Pope had named the 6th of July for the solemn
proclamation of the union. The Emperor, Pope, with
the Greek and Latin Bishops, assembled in the Cathe-
dral Church of Florence, followed by a numerous con-
course of spectators. After the Te Deum, the Cardinal
Julian and the Metropolitan of Nicsea read in a loud
voice the Council decree on the union of Churches.
Julian read in Latin, Bessarion in Greek. In the be-
ginning of this decree, the Pope invited the whole of
the Christian world to take part in this great festival,
this omission is due to the carelessness of the transcriber. We also do
not find the name of the Bussian Bishop, Abram of Suzdal, who
accompanied Isidore, anywhere among the Greek signatures; this is
why Amirutius writes : oUre rod 'Ptotrlas reus ^oypoupais ovyBefi^vov
(Allat. de consens. p. 908.) But, in the Florentine manuscript of the
Council acts Abramius* signature is met with. (Vide Sacharoff, Travels
of Bussians. S. Petersburgh, 1837, pt. 11, page 85.) In the des-
cription of Isidore's journey it is said, that Abram was forced to sign,
after haying been imprisoned a whole week by Isidore. At all events,
it suffices to mention, that about ten original copies of the decree are
to be found in the West, whereas only five were written at the Council.
GKeseler, Lehrbuch der Eirchengeschichte. ii. § 544.
1 Syrop. X. 8, 9.
156 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
and to return grateful thanks to the Lord^ Who, by
His omnipotent grace, had thrown down the wall,
which, until now, had separated the Churches, and had
united them in the firm bonds of love and peace. Then
followed the exposition of the doctrine on the Procession
of the Holy Ghost, on the Wafer, Purgatory, and the
Papal authority, in expressions admitted by the mutual
consent of the Greeks and Latins.
After the reading of the act, Julian asked the Latins
whether they agreed to the decreed The Latins unani-
mously answered, " We agree, we agree.'^ When the
same question was made to the Greeks by Bessarion,
many answered in the same manner, but not all. The
Archbishop of Nicsea and the Cardinal then embraced
each other. The festival was concluded by a Liturgy
officiated according to the Latin rite,^ in which, how-
ever, not one of the Greek Bishops would take part
with the Latins, notwithstanding the Pope^s wish, that
they should ; and none of the Greeks communicated in
the wafer.2
Such was the conclusion of peace ; but peace there
was not. Peace was proclaimed between the Churches,
and nothing peaceful was there in the spirit of the re-
conciled parties. Verbally, and in the decree, it was
admitted, that the Holy Eucharist is alike valid whether
performed on wafers or on leavened bread; but in fact
the Greeks refused to receive the Sacrament from the
^ During the Liturgy, at the time the Pope washed his hands thrice,
the water was handed the second time by the Bussian enyoy, very likely
Thomas of Tver ; and this was done at Isidore's demand, from respect,
as he said, to the dignity of the Bussian Duke. Syr. x. 10.
2 Syn. Flor. pp. 653—670.
THE POPE REFUSES THE EASTERN LITURGY. 157
hands of the Latins^ and their kiss of peace was given
to each other and not to the Latins ; and the Latins in
their tum^ as we shall see afterwards^ refused to be pre-
sent during the Greek Liturgy, The conclusion of
peace was a joyful event for one party only — the victors.
On leaving ConstantinoplCj the Greeks hoped to be able
to persuade the Latins of their secession from the an-
cient doctrine of faith. Instead of this, they were now
obliged to avow the Latins in the right, and admit
themselves to be in the wrong, though in reality the
truth was on their side. The Latins acceded to nothing ;
the Greeks were more or less obliged to accede to them
in everything. The victorious party did not even try to
soothe the sad feelings of their new brethren. The
pride of the self-wflled conqueror evinced itself in all
his intercourse with the newly reconciled party.
The day after the proclamation of the decree, the
Emperor sent the Metropolitans of Russia and Nicsea
to invite the Pope to perform the Greek Liturgy, in
order that the Latins might become acquainted with
the rites and ceremonies of the Eastern Church. But
the Pope refused to do so, pleading his ignorance of the
order of the Greek Liturgy, and requested that the ser-
vice should first be performed privately before two or
three Cardinals. " We shall then be able to see,^^ said
the Pope, "whether we can approve of your service,
and allow the solemn performance of the Liturgy to
take place.^' This proud answer deeply offended the
Emperor. " We had hoped,^^ he said, " to correct the
errors of the Latins. * And now I see, that the Latins,
who have erred in mauy respects, wish to correct us,
who have in no ways cl^anged the ancient rules.'' Since
158 HISTOBY OF THE COUNCIL 07 FLOBENCE.
then^ the Emperor never again expressed his wish to
have the Liturgy performed by the Pope.^
Soon after this, the Pope proposed eleven questions
to the Greeks, concerning the oflSce of the Holy Eucha-
rist, the Holy Chrism, divorces, and the election of the
Patriarch. Regarded now as the head of the Church
(Ecumenical, he thought himself to have the right of
demanding from the Greeks a strict observance of the
rules of the Church of Bome. Dorotheus, Metropolitan
of Mitylene, as he himself says, gave satisfactory an-
swers to all the Latin questions, except two :-— on
divorces, and the election of the Patriarch. The
Pope addressed these questions to the Emperor. He
asked him why the Greeks allow divorces, quite con-
trary to the plain words of our Lobd. He next de-
manded that the Greek Bishops should choose a Patri**
arch from out of the Bishops present at the Council,
and that, too, before they left Florence. " We have,''
said the Pope, '^ the Patriarch of Constantinople chosen
by us from the Latins, a man of noble birth, honest,
rich, and very old.^ He has not long to live. If you
choose him for your Patriarch, your Church will then
inherit his riches. If you have already elected one
from your own, I am ready to confirm your choice,
and withdraw my own candidate.^' This demand was
followed up by another, that Mark of Ephesus should
be given up to be judged as an obstinate opponent of
the union and the decree.
The Emperor answered the Pope through his Bishops,
1 Syr. X. 11.
3 This was the Cardinal Franciscus Condohnier, nephew to the Pope.
Chaloedon, L. vi. p. 159 ; Le Q.uien, Or..Chr. t. iiL pp. 834, 835.
MARK OF EPHESUS. 159
that the Eastern Church has sufScient reasons for
allowing divorces ; he positively refused to name a Pa-
triarch while in Florence, for, according to the custom
of oldj the Patriarch of Constantinople must be elected
with the consent of all the dioceses under his jurisdic-
tion, and ordained in the Cathedral Church of Con-
stantinople. And as to Mark of Ephesus, the Emperor
said, that he, being a Metropolitan of the Eastern
Church, could be judged only by Eastern Bishops.^
But^ when the Pope persisted in demanding that the
election of the Patriarch should take place in Florence,
and asked the Emperor to send Mark to him, to receive
at least a private reprimand, John, at Gregory's advice
(Gregory, the almoner, feared that Isidore would be
elected Patriarch), sent off some of the eldest Metropo-
litans to Venice, and then told the Pope that, in the
absence of some of the Bishops, the election to the Pa-
triarchate could not take place. Mark of Ephesus came
to the Pope, who met him with reproaches and threats,
reminding him of the punishments appointed by the
(Ecumenical Councils for those who should dare to dis-
obey their decrees. But the undaunted defender g[
Orthodoxy gave a decisive answer. ''The Councils/'
said he, ''sentenced those who would not obey the
Church, and kept to opinions contrary to her doctrine.
I express not my own opinions, I introduce nothing
new into the Church, neither do I defend any errors.
But I steadfastly preserve the doctrine which the
Church, having received from Christ our Saviour, has
ever kept and keeps. This doctrine was also adhered
to by the Church of Rome unanimously with that of
• 1 Synod. Flor.pp. 670—675 : Syp. x. 12.
160 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
the East^ until the beginning of the division. This
doctrine you yourselves have ever approved of before,
and have often praised, even in the time being of this
Council. And who can slander, or put down this doc-*
trine? If I stand steadfast in this doctrine, and do not
wish to reject it, who dares to judge me as a heretic ?
You must first judge the doctrine I defend ; but if that
is received unanimously as being holy and orthodox,
how is it, then, that I merit judgment?'^ The Pope
was obliged to admit inwardly that there was no hope
of dissuading Mark from his opinion, and bade him
depart.^
As the Papal demands were not attended to, so also
those of the Emperor remained unanswered. This can
serve as an evident proof how little there was of sin-
cerity and real desire of reconciliation in both parties
with regard to the imion. Though the Emperor did
avow the Pope head of the Church (Ecimienical, and
ordered his name to be mentioned in the Liturgy,^ still
he did not forget to assert the rights of the Eastern
Church to some lands unjustly appropriated by the
Church of Rome. The Pope was told that as peace of
old was restored to the Churches, so also ought the
former boundaries of the dioceses of both the Churches
to be restored just as they were before the division of
Churches took place. For this reason the Churchea on
the Islands of Rhodes, Corfu, and others, unjustly ap-
propriated by the Church of Rome, were to be returned
1 Syr. X. 15, 16. Ducas, the Byzantine historian, though inclined to-
wards the Latins, still notices very justly that Mark is Koofifv Koi ardjBfAri
itirap^KraroSf c. xxxi. p. 119.
2 Syr. X. 12.
TEBBITOBIAL DIVISIONS. 161
to the Constantinopolitan throne. Besides this^ the
Emperor^ at the petition of the Metropolitans of Mo-
nemvasia^ Rhodes^ Mitylene^ and several others^ showed
the Pope the necessity of recalling the Latin Bishops
from these dioceses. " The Church of Rome/' said the
Metropolitans, " must enforce the holy laws, which pro-
hibit two Bishops to preside in one diocese, and also the
ordination of any Bishop in a diocese not under the
jurisdiction of the Bishop ordaining.'*
' The Pope made no answer to this demand of the
Emperor. With regard to the recalling of the Latin
Bishops from the Greek dioceses, he answered : " Where-
as now, after the restoration of peace in the Church,
there is no more disagreement between the Latin and
Greek Bishops, — ^it would be unjust to dismiss either
the Greek or the Latin Bishops from dioceses now
under their jurisdiction, but it were better to leave
matters as they are. Let two Bishops sit on one throne,
but when the Latin dies, then let the Greek Bishop
alone rule the diocese, and his successors be chosen by
the Eastern Church. In the same manner, if the Greek
Bishop dies before the Latin, then let the survivor
alone sit on the throne, which from that time will be
reckoned as being under the jurisdiction of the Church
of Eome.''^ Such a decision of course could not satisfy
the just demands of the Greek Bishops, and was be-
sides a dangerous one for the Eastern Church. *' The
Pope's decision, however," says Syropulus, "was only
a verbal one, and was never followed out."
Prom all the events subsequent to the union of
Churches, one could well conclude as to the results it
» Syp. X. 14.
162 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
would have for the fature. The Emperor sought and
adhered to the union^ simply in hopes of the aid pro-
mised for his unfortunate empire.
On the 6th of July Pope Eugenius was recognised by
the Greeks at the Council of Florence as head of the
Church : whereas ten days previous (June 25) the
Council of Basle having repeated the ancient decree on
the superiority of (Ecumenical Councils over the Pope,
had passed judgment upon Eugenius as a heretic for
not agreeing to the truth of this decree, and had de-
throned him. The Greeks left the Pope to manage as
best he could with this Council and the other Pope
elected at Basle. Isidore alone, with a few others,
remained in Florence until (Sept. 4) Eugenius had pub-
licly in the Cathedral hurled his anathemas and inters
dictions at the Council of Basle.^ On the 18th of
December, the Pope elected Isidore and Bessarion to
the rank of Cardinals, as a reward for their zeal in
the cause of the union. Besides this honour Isidore
was named Legate a latere in Poland, Livonia, and
Bussia.^
The rest of the Greeks had already left the Council
in the month of July. Those who had gone away the
earliest, were obliged to wait for the Emperor in
Venice, as he left Florence in the end of August (26th) .^
Mark of Ephesus accompanied him, and his comforts
were attended to by the Emperor himself during the
whole of his journey.* The Pope blessed the Em-
* Ant. BibHoth. vi. § 44.
^ The Papal ypdfifia to Isidore, republished in t. L of the Hist.
Kussiffi Monumenta. No. 121.
3 Syn. Flor. p. 676 j Syr. x. 17 ; Ant. Bibl. vi. § 44.
4 Syr. xi. 2.
THE GBBEKS AT VENICE. 163
peror^ and promised to send out a fleet and army to
Constantinople, if only the European monarelis would
agree to help him. Three Cardinals and many pre-
lates accompanied the Emperor as far as the frontiers
of Tuscany. The Emperor arrived in Venice with his
suite on the 6th of September.
Before the Emperor's arrival, Metrophanes, Metro-
politan of Cyzicum, while celebrating the Liturgy in one
of the Venetian monasteries, dared to mention the Pope's
name in the service, but was then at the time reproved
by the other Metropolitans and the Despot, who were
present. The Emperor wishing to accede to the Doge's
wish of seeing the Greek service, could prevail on the
Metropolitan of Heraclea alone to officiate in the Church
of S. Mark, and that too after many entreaties. The
Metropolitan consented at last, but performed the ser-
vice on the Greek antimensia, and with the Greek com-
munion plate; the Pope's name was not mentioned and
the Creed was read without the Filioque clause.^
The Emperor left Venice on the 19th of October with
his brother, the Bishops, and other Greeks, in two
merchant vessels. The orthodox inhabitants of Cor&,
Methone in the Peloponnesus, Euboea, places where there
were both Latin and Greek Bishops, on hearing the
results of the Council from the Greeks, made no cere-
mony in showing their discontent with the union.
" Until now," said they to the Greeks, " we could de-
fend our faith and customs against the Latins, but now
we must silently obey them in everything." The poor
travellers, who had been away two years from their
homes, arrived in Constantinople on the 1st of February,
* Syp. xi. 1—4.
164 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
1440. As an addition to their sorrow, the Emperor
and the Despot on returning to their respective homes
and families, found themselves widowers.^
CHAPTER IX.
BSTTTBN OP THE GbEEKS HOME. EeJECTIOIT OE THE FlOBXNTIHB
Union by the Orthodox Eabtesn Ghitsoh.
As soon as the travellers stepped on shore, the inhabit-
ants of Constantinople assailed the Bishops with ques-
tions : " How did the Council end ? Have we gained
the victory?^' Those, who had been forced to the
union, or had joined it from interested motives, but
had not as yet lost all conscience of their crime, did
not conceal the truth. Feeling themselves now at
liberty in their native land, amidst their orthodox breth-
ren, they answered with heartfelt sorrow: ^^We have
sold our faith, we have exchanged Orthodoxy for hetero-
doxy, and losing our former pure faith have become
azymites. May our hands, which signed the unjust
decree be cut oflf! May our tongues which have spoken
consent with the Latins be plucked out 1^^^ These were
the first words of the good but weak Pastors — ^Anthony of
Heraclea, the oldest members of the Council, and others.
Such news made a terrible impression on the orthodox
townspeople. Every one avoided the new arrivers, and
those who had anything to do with them. The clergy
» Syr. xi. 5—10. « Ducas. c. xxxi. p. 120, 121. Ed. 1649.
THE DEPUTIES RETURN. 165
who had remained in Constantinople would not even
agree to officiate with those^ who^ repenting of their
consent to the union^ declared that they were forced
to it n
The Emperor^ who had never felt a real inclination
to act in the cause of the Latins^ and now dissatisfied
with the Fope^ grieving about the loss of his wife^ and
troubled by the public discontent with the union^^ would
not for a long time occupy himself with Church afiairs.
Three months had elapsed since the return of the Greeks,
and the Church of Constantinople had still no Patriarch.
At last the Emperor ordered the proper persons to think
about the election of the Patriarchy an election the more
necessary, as the disorders among the clergy were every
day getting more and more violent. Then arose the
question, ^^ whom to elect ?" Was the Patriarch to be
chosen from out of those, who had shown the most zeal
in the cause of the union, or from out of the defenders
of Orthodoxy ? The election of the Patriarch was to
settle the lot of the union proclaimed in Florence. The
Emperor, though little inclined to favour the Latins,
would not however break his alliance with Borne. This
was the reason of his not choosing Bessarion or any
other zealot in the cause of the union, but demanded
at the same time that the person chosen should be an
upholder of the union.
The proposal of the Patriarchal throne was first made
to Mark of Ephesus, the firm defender of Orthodoxy,
and on his refusal of this dignity, as must have been
^ Syr. xii 1 ; Coll. Cruci. Turco-Gbwcia. 1. i.
s For in many Churches the Emperor's name was even omitted from
the service. Syr. xii. 2.
166 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
expected, three candidates were then chosen from out
of those, who had been at the Council and signed the
act of union ; namely, Anthony of Heraclea, Dorotheus
of Trebizond, and Metrophanes of Cyzicus. But An-
thony and Dorotheus, as they rejected the union, so
also did they reject the profiFered honour. Anthony
addressing the Council, said : ^^ I have come here not
to be elected, but to disburden my conscience before
the Council, a thing I stand in need of very much. I,
as you yourselves know, did not agree with those, who
approved of the union, but I did sign the decree, though
involuntarily. And since then has my conscience con-
stantly smitten me. Bowed down with remorse, I have
been seeking an opportunity of throwing this weight
off my soul. I thank God, that He has spared me
to see you all together in the assembly, and that now I
can free myself of my burden by telling you all I wished
to say. I repeat therefore, that I reject the union, that
I find the Florentine decree contrary to the ancient
tradition of the Holy Catholic Church, and give myself
over to be judged by the Church, as guilty of having
signed that which ought not to have been signed.''
After this, Metrophanes was chosen, who at the desire
of the royal oflScers gave a written promise of upholding
the Florentine union. He ascended the Patriarchal
throne on the 4th of May, 1440.
Though the promise given by Metrophanes was made
in secret, — ^though even at that time there was no men-
tion made of publishing the decree of the Florentine
Council, or of inserting the Pope's name in the service,
— still the very election itself of Metrophanes, who had
shown himself a traitor in Venice by his servile adula>
METBOPHANES^ FATBIARCH. 167
tion before the Pope; the unceremonious bearing to-^
wards him of the bishop present at his ordination as
the Papal representative; then^ again^ the disappoint-
ment of the general expectation, that the new Patriarch
would put affairs into their former order ; all this toge-
ther served to alienate most of the orthodox from the
Patriarch. Many of the bishops would not officiate
tc^ether with him; and when the Emperor tried to
compel them to do so^ Mark of Ephesus and Anthony
of Heraclea secretly left Constantinople^ (May 14.)
After this, the Emperor began to act with still greater
care, especially when his brother Demetrius, who had
not received the Florentine union, availing himself of
the coolness of the people to the Emperor for favouring
the Latin Church, openly opposed him; so that the
Pope accused John of weakness and indifference to the
cause of the union,^ and Metrophanes positively threat-^
ened to leave his throne.
At the Emperor's persuasion, however, remaining
where he was, he began to act in favour of the union,
appointing his friends to the vacant dioceses; and when
Demetrius again made friends with the Emperor, he
urgently demanded a complete union with the Church
of Borne, by right of the decree passed in Florence.
But at the time when the Bishops were assembling in
Constantinople, to discuss the means of bringing the
* Syr. sii. 2, 5. Compare with chap. ii. Among the works of Mark
is one entitled, De Fug& ;ne&. Fabr. xi. p. 675.
' In a letter to Constantino, another brother of the Emperor, of whom
the Pope had received more &tTourable accounts from his Bishop in
Constantinople the Pope wrote : '* In e& causa (unione) per oaris-
Bunum in Christo filium nostrum Johannem Palseologum Bomanorum
Imperatorem haotenus satis tenue et tepide est processum."
\
168 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
{4^8 to pass^ Metrophanes died.^ (Aug. 1^ 1448.)
The^atriarch^s death seemed to justify the severe sen-
tence "wbich had been pronounced over his actions in
Jerusalem by the other three Patriarchs.
The Eastern Patriarchs abeady knew of the different
Latin plans for gaining over the Greeks, from a letter
written by Joseph, the Patriarch of Constantinople,
either in Florence or Perrara. After being informed by
the Pope of the termination of the various discussions,
they soon received an invitation from him to join the
union of Churches agreed to at Florence, in which he
carefully concealed the conditions under which the
union took place. The Patriarchs came to know of
these conditions from those who had returned from
Italy. Burning with zeal for Orthodoxy, notwithstand-
ing its persecution by the Turks, one of these pastors of
the East answered the Pope, saying, that he was ready
to enter into union with the Church of Rome, if that
Church receives all ancient decrees of the (Ecumenical
Councils, and the doctrines confirmed by them and the
Holy Fathers. " On this condition,'* he wrote, '' we
receive the Council of Florence, and do not refuse to
mention the Pope^s name in the service. In case of
the contrary, we reject the Council j we sentence the
bishops and clergy who receive it to be degraded frora
their rank, and the laymen to be excommunicated.''
Not satisfied with this, the same Eastern Patriarch
wrote to the Emperor John :^ "If you have given way
1 Syr. lii. 11.
' This letter is written in December of the 6th indict, which cor-
responds to the year 1442. The Patriarch's name is not mentioned in
the epistle, which is found in Allat. de consen. pp. 942 — ^945.
COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM. 169
to the Latins for a time only^ in hopes of receiving
their aid for the empire^ and do now reject their doc-
trine and return to the orthodox faith of your royal
ancestors^ then we will pray for the salvation of the
empire^ and especially for thy soul^ that the Lord may
pardon you all your sins. But if you will be obstinate^
and defend a doctrine strange to our Churchy then not
only will we leave off remembering you in our prayers,
but will sentence you to a strict epitimia, in order
that the disease of the strange and dangerous doctrine
should not circulate further in Chbist^s Church. We
cannot rule the Orthodox Church as hirelings ; but for
Chbist^s and His GospeFs sake we are ready to lay
down our souls, bodies, blood, all that we have here on
earth.'*
A few months afterwards all the three Eastern Pa-
triarchs assembled in Jerusalem ; and having been in-
formed by Arsenius, Metropolitan of Csesarea, of the
Metropolitans and Bishops ordained by Metrophanes
from among the Latins, pronounced judgment over the
unworthy pastors, and proclaimed them deprived of all
Church dignities till a Council should have examined
their orthodoxy. Giving full powers to Arsenius for
acting conformably with their decision throughout the
whole of the East, the Patriarchs — Philotheus of Alex-
andria, Dorotheus of Antioch, and Joachim of Jeru-
salem — wrote in their patriarchal letter : ^^ The Metro-
politan of Csesarea of Cappadocia has informed us of
the disorders occasioned by the lawless Council of
Florence in Constantinople; a Council in which the
Greeks received the Latin dogmas contrary to the
ancient canons of the Orthodox Church. The same
170 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
Metropolitan informed ma, that Metrophanes of Cyzi*
cum^ who hath nnlawftilly usurped the Constantino*
politan chair, doth distribute dioceses in the Constant
tinopolitan Patriarchate and in all the East to fads
associates^ who corrupt their fold by their false doGr
trine^ and sow temptations in Christ's Church. Wheret
fore we, in the name of the yiviiying and inseparaU^
Trinity^ do through this Council declare to all Mer
tropolitans^ Bishops, and others of the clergy ordained
by Metrophanes, that they^ for partaking of this heresy,
are deprived of their right of ofSciating, of all their
ecclesiastical degrees, until their faith shall be examined
by the (Ecumenical Council. Should they not obey
our decree, and voluntarily leave their places, which
they occupy unlawfully, let them then be excomma«
nicated by the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, both
they, and those who think together with them.'' Giv-
ing the Metropolitan of Caesarea the right of carry-
ing out this decree, the Patriarchs also gave him full
powers to preach publicly against the unjust union, to
expose and correct all the heterodox thinkers. The
decree was published in April, 1443.^
Mark of Ephesus, the aged defender of Orthodoxy,
weighed down by age and illness, but strong in spirit,
was not silent also. In his circulars to all Christians,
he conjured them to depart from the Florentine union,
as one offensive to God ; vividly representing the ad-
mixture of the old with the new, of the orthodox and pa-
tristical with what was newly invented by the Latinizing
Greeks, and offered his own confession of faith, founded
^ In the same indict as the preceding one. It is found in Allat. de
consensu, pp. 939 — 941.
LETTXB OF ICARK. 171
on the pure doctrine of the Church.* '' These people/^
he wtcfte, *^ admit with the Latins that the Holy Ghost
proceeds firom the Son, and derives His existence from
Him; for so says their definition, and at the same
time they say with us that the Spirit proceeds &om
the Father. With the Latins, they think the ad-
dition made to the Creed hiwful and just; and with
us will not pronounce it. With them they say that
aEymes are the Body of Christ, and with us dare not
communicate on them. Is not this sufficient to show
that they came to the Latin Council, not to investigate
the truth, which they once possessed and then betrayed,
but simply to earn some gold, and attain a false and not
a true union ? False : for they read two creeds, as they
did before; perform two different liturgies, one on
leavened, the other on unleavened bread ; two baptisms,
one by the trine immersion, and the other by aspersion
— one with the holy chrism, the other without it. In
like manner all other customs are different with them^
e. g., fasts, church rites, &c. What sort of union is
this, then, when it has no external sign? How could
they join together, retaining each his own? Many
^ We know of the (a) cirenlttr epistle of Mark, in which he states hisj
opimaii of the Council of Florence. It is published with the objections
written by Joseph of Metho in the Acts of the Council of Florence, t. ii.
pp. 274, 361. (6.) Another epistle, with the same contents, published
together with the objection written by Gregory the Protosynoellus, pp.
362, 475. (c.) The confession of Mark of Ephesus, first prepared by
him to be presented to the Council of Florence^ and then published in a
more enlarged form. It is preserved in Greek in manuscripts. Objec-
tions were also written against it by Gregory ; they only prove that
Marie's words were very dangerous for his opponents. Conf. Fabr. Bibl.
Gnec. Ed. Harles. xL p. 398, 673, et seq.
I 2
172 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
were tempted by the idea," Mark continued, ^' that one
can find a medium between tw6 doctrines. True : one
can find such expressions which, having a double mean-
ing, could at the same time express something between
the two doctrines. But a doctrine midway between
two contrary doctrines on the same subject is impos-
sible; for in this case it must be something between
truth and falsehood, between an affirmation and a nega-*
tion. Thus, if the Latin doctrine of the Spirit's pro**
cession from the Son is just, then ours is false. What
middle doctrine can there be here ?'' In the end of his
epistle Mark wrote, "Avoid, brethren^ such teachers,
and all communion with them. They are false apos-
tles, workers of evil transformed into Apostles of
Christ. . . ^ It is not the Lord Jesus they serve, but
their own bellies, and seduce the hearts of the inno-
cent by their sweet words and blessings. You know
what the Apostles command us to do: ^Though an
angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you
than that which we have preached unto you, let him be
accursed.' (Gal. i. 8.) And Christ's beloved disciple
says, ■ If there come any unto you, and bring not this
doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid
him God speed : for he that biddeth him God speed is
partaker of his evil deeds.' (2 S. John 10, 11.) Keep,
then, to the traditions received by you, both those which
^re written and not written, so as not to lose your own
security by giving way to evil doctrines."^
Mark's words and influence had a great effect both
on the ignorant and plain, and on the learned, inclin-
ing them to the defence of Orthodoxy. So George
> Synod. Mor. t. ii. p. 369, et seq.
OTHER EASTERN CHAMPIONS. 173
Scholarius^ who for a time inclined towards the Latins^
was now confirmed by Mark in the true faith^ and
afterwards became one of its most zealous defenders.^
Without Mark of Ephesus, none of those, who had re-
jected the union would enter into any disputes with
their opponents.^ Following Mark^s example, his brother
John Eugenicus wrote a refutation of the Florentine
decree ;^ Syropulus put all the actions of the Council in
their true light; in like manner Amirutius represented,
though briefly, the secret motives of the Greeks for in-
clining to the union with the Church of Rome.* An-
other philosopher, Gemistes Pletho, who had defended
the orthodox doctrine at the Council, also published a
defence of the orthodox doctrine on the procession of
the Holy Ghost.^
Thus, we see, that from all sides voices were raised
against the Florentine union. The Emperor however
retained the same relations to the Orthodox and the
Church of Rome. Brooding on his favourite idea of
throwing off the Turkish yoke, he had already entered
into negotiations with the Pope and Yladislaus, the
^ A letter is preserved ^m Mark to Gfeorge Scholarius, in which he
reproves him for his unnecessary readiness to admit the reconciliation
of Churches. See Fabr. Bibl. Grsec. Ed. Harles, t. xi. pp. 364, 365.
The same is testified by Manuel the Rhetorician in his work on " Mark
of Ephesus, and the Florentine Council." Manuscript of the Synod.
Library, n. 396.
3 See the words of the Chartophylax Michael Balsamon in his report
to the Emperor John PaUeologus. Allat. de cons. p. 924.
^ Published by Dositheus, Fatr. of Jerusalem, iy T6fMf KardWayris.
* Extracts from his epistle to Demetrius, Duke of Nauplia, in AHat.
de consens. p. 882, and other places.
' Fabr. Bibl. Gt»c. Ed. Harles, t. xii. p. 100. Extracts are published
Iby AUat. de consens. p. 908, and other places.
174 HISTOBY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
King of Hungary^ concerning the mutual concentration
of forces against the Ottoman Empire. Their plans had
been to cause a revolt against Amurath in Asia Minor,
and by alluring him there with the best part of his
forces^ to cut off his return to Europe by means of a
powerful fleet, and then retake all the towns in his
European dominions. The Pope had already invited
the European Monarchs to aid the unfortunate Greeks.
Cardinal Csesarini persuaded Yladislaus to break a treaty
of peace concluded by him a year ago with AmuraS
the space of ten years. The fleet arrived in the Helles-
pont. But Amurath managed to return firom Asia, and
even to rout Yladislaus' army under Varna (Nov. 10,
1444.) Yladislaus himself and Cardinal Csesarini fell
in this battle.^ So vanished all the hopes placed in the
union, which God had not blessed !
But even after this, John still could not make up his
niind to break all his relations with the Pope. For
about three years the Church of Constantinople had no
Patriarch after the death of Metrophanes, and the vacant
see was given to Gregory Mammae the Emperor's con*
fessor, and one of the most active causes of the Floren-
tine union. He himself wrote objections to Mark's
writings,^ and began a dispute in Constantinople be-
tween the principal def^ders of Orthodoxy and the
Latin litterati.^ The Pope named him for his zeal in
* Le beau Livr. 118, § 5-^16.
2 Gregory's objections were mentioned aboye. Besides this Gregory
sent a defence of the Latin doctrine to the Emperor of Trebizond ; Or-
thod. Gh*8ec. 1. 1, p. 419, 468, and asked Bessarion to write some objec-
tions to MarVs syllogisms against the Latin doctrines. Fabr. xi. p. 8d4.
3 The controyersy of Mark of Ephesos and George Scholarius witii
Bartholomew, Bishop of Gorone, is well known. It is mmtioned by
DEATH OF THE EMPEROR. 175
the Latin cause^ Patriarch also of the Latin party then
IB Constantinople.^ But notwithstanding all his efforts^
as the Pope himself writes^ he could not proclaim and
enact the decree passed in Florence.^ So strong was
the aversion of the clergy and people to the Latin union^
which was attained at the sacrifice of Orthodoxy ! The
Bishops and clergy of Constantinople demanded^ that
an (Ecumenical Council should be held in Constanti-
nople itself to terminate all the evil caused by the ad-
herents of the union.3 But the Emperor John died
(Oct. 31^ 1448) before he had time to satisfy these de-
Anthony the Florentine in his manuscript of the year 1445. See Zoer-
nikoff, p. 1042. The results of this dispute were two books of Schola-
rius " on the procession of the Holy Ghost.'* Both were originally
written for the Emperor of Trebizond. The first was published in Greek
in London, 1624, though under another name : 'Xhyrceyiia, hnypa/^6fjifVQii
'Op6o96^ov Kvrat^^iov. The other is preserved in manuscript. See Fabr.
BibL Gr»c. xi. 384, et seq. 392. Le Quien, Dissert. Damasc. i. p. 80.
On Bartholomew, Bishop of Corone, see Le Quien, Or. Chr. t. iii. p.
900 et 1040.
^ Le Quien, Or. Chr. t. iiL p. 886. So Pope Pius 11. writes, giving
Isidore, the once Bussian Metropolitan, the title of Patriarch of Con*
stantinople (in 1459) after Ghregory's death.
2 Pope Nicholas Y. wrote in 1451 to the Smperor Oonstantine Pal»-
ologus : Et ecoe jam tot anni transiere, ex quo ista facta sunt, et tameu
i^d Gtsbcos uniontM hujusmodi decretum silentio iegitur, neo ulla spes
filacet ut yioletur, qui ad hano unionem amplectendam dispositi esse
Tideantur. Zoemikof^ p. 1046.
3 See the reports (htfcfufHtpd) of the Bishops and clergy of Constanti-
nople printed in the book of Nestorius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, on the
Papal authority, in Jasses, 1682, pp. 233, 236. The time of this report
can be determined by the following circumstances : (a.) the opinion of
the Eastern Patriarchs about the union was already known ; (b.) Con-
stantinople had its own Patriarch, whom the Bishops and clergy wished
to prove his Orthodoxy. This might have been either during the latter
period of Mefcrophanes* administration or else in the time of Grego];y.
176 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
mands ; at all events before his death he rejected all
union with the Church of Rome.^ At last the inner-
most wishes of the orthodox pastors and people were
fulfilled. A year and a half after Constantine's acces-
sion to the throne of Byzantium^ three Eastern Patri-
archs in whose name^ though without their consent^ the
Florentine unorthodox ^^ decree^^ was signed, viz., Philo-
theus of Alexandria, Dorotheus of Antioch and Theo-
phanes of Jerusalem, assembled in Constantinople with
many Metropolitans and Bishops to quiet the disturbed
Church. Assembling a Council in the Church of S. So-
phia in Constantinople, they deprived Gregory Mamma
of his patriarchal throne and appointed the Orthodox
Athanasius in his place, and then in the name of all the
Eastern Church rejected the decree of the Council of
Florence which they convicted as having acted contrary
to the orthodox faith, and accused the Church of Rome
of many digressions from the ancient rules, and rites of
^ As a proof of this we can adduce^ — ^besides the testimony brought
forward by Zoemikoff from the Acts of the Council of Constantinople^
1450 and 1451, (Zoemikoff, p. 1044), — ^the very words of George 8eko»
larius (adr. the addition to the Creed), quoted by the Patriarch Bosi-
theus, in his history of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, (B^k 10, pt. 1, c. 18,
§ 9) : " With regard to this John, we know very well, how he reasoned
about his affairs in Florence, and how attentiye he was to our answers ;
how he forced no one, and wished us to preserve the doctrine of the
Fathers ; approved of those who did this and despised all who thought
contrary. We are all witnesses of this ; every one of us has heard ^^»
from his own lips. At the beginning though, he, fearing when there
was no cause to fear, — ^would not aUow the public performance of fhift
act so saving for the soul." (p. 982.) Manuel the Rhetor plainly attri-
butes the return of John Palseologus to Orthodoxy to the persuasion of
Markof Ephesus : rohs fthf ivavaicrnffAfifiios, kolL aMv 8^a rhw uX64ir^iM
BoffiKia, Cod. Mo. Synod. Bibl. sec. oataL Math»L n. 393, p. 119.
COUNCIL OP CONSTANTINOPLE. 177
the Church CBcumenical.^ Gregory soon after this left
as a fugitive for Rome (August, 1451.)
One could have hoped that now peace would have
been quite reinstated in the Constantinopolitan Church.
^ Allatius is the first to giye information of the acts of this Council in
tile addition to his book : de Ecclesife Orientalis et Occidentalis perpeta&
eonsensione, pp. 1380, 1389. AUatius doubted the yaliditj of this
Gounci], finding some anachronisms and contradictions in its acts, with
contemporary history. Afterwards the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Dosi-
theus, pubUshed the acts of this Council in his work : T({/ios &7(£in}s, in
a more corrected form, and in his History of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem
refuted the objections of Allatius. (T. ii book 10, ch. ix. pp. 915 — ^917.)
In the same way Zoemikofi^, not knowing of a more correct copy of
these acts, also tried to solve Allatius* objections. (T. ii. pp. 1052 —
1058). ISoud misunderstandings are not all cleared up, and very likely
the reason of this is, that the original copy of these acts, as is said in
its title page, is taken not from the church codex, but from a prirate
library of Constantine Lascaris, most likely in a shorter and not quite
correct form. This helps to explain why at the Council Macarius of
Nicomedia calls the MetropoUtan of Kieff Dorotheus, whereas Jonah
was then MetropoUtan of Kieff and All Bussia. Here we will only notice,
that (a.) the Eastern Patriarchs in the ypdfi/ia given to the Metropolitan
Arsenius in April, 1443, had remanded the examination of the Orthodoxy
of theBishops ordained by Metrophanes until the time of the CEcumenical
Council (&XP*^ ^ Heratr&p ri cdcr^jBcia Koivm re icod oiKoviieviKus) ; (b.)
that the Bishops and clergy of Constantinople in their report (aywt>opa)
to the Emperor also showed the necessity of calling the Eastern Patri-
urchs to a Council in Constantinople, and promised to write to them,
{Neicraplov, p. 235) ; (c.) that Amirutius writes, that the Eastern Patri-
archs present at the Council rejected the signatures of their vicars (Oi
HarpiApx^ "f"^^ ^oypw^^s rwv oU^lcov iirirp6iro»if €l\6yws Kol <rvpoSiKws
1l0fniaray. Allat. de cons. Eccl. p. 682.) We know of no other Council
in which this was done, but the Council of Constantinople, 1450 and
1451. (d.) That though the name of the Patriarch Athanasius, elected
in place of Gregory, is not mentioned, in the contemporary Byzan-
tine manuscripts, still we do often meet with a name like his, viz.,
Anastasius, Patriarch of Constantinople, in the Bussian narrative of the
fjEiU of Constantinople. (Nicon's Manuscr. t. v.)
i3
178 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
Bui Constantine wishing to save his throne^ to defend
which he had hardly five thousand soldiers of his own^
again tamed for aid to the Pope^ and by this caused
new disorder in the Churchy which terminated with
the fall of the very Empire. The new Commander of
the Turks^ — the harsh and ambitious Mahomet 11.^
immediately on his accession to the throne^ (Feb. 5th^
1451) — commenced planning the conquest of Constant-
tinople. Constantine was struck with terror on hearing
this, and sent ofiF an embassy to Kome petitioning help,
promising to fulfil the Florentine treaty^ and even in-
j^ting Gregory to return to Constantinople.
When this became known^ the defenders of Ortho-
doxy were sorely taken aback. George Scholarius then
stood at their head (he was called Gennadius on receiv-
ing tonsure). Mark had already passed into eternity^
and before his death had bequeathed to his friend the
keeping of the ancient Orthodoxy.^ Gennadius^ who
then lived in the monastery of the All-possessing God,
when preaching a sermon during the Emperor's visit to
the monastery^ tried to dissuade him from an union
with the Church of Rome, which in fact was hardly of
> Gennadius pronounced a panegyric oyer the body of this yeneroble
&ther (Fabr. xi. p. 392), and Mark's brother, John Eugenicus, com-
posed a tertfice for the annirersary of his death (ibid. p. 653). Nesto-
rius, Patriarch of Constantinople, according to the testimony of one
aged monk, says, that in Constantinople the anniyersary of Mark's
death was annually celebrated by the &mily of Eugenici, from which
Mark descended, ircpl rrjs ipxyi^» p. 186. Mark's Uut will to Schola-
rius is published by Benaudot, together with the Homilies of Scholarius
on the Eucharist. The life of Mark qf Bphetue, composed by his
brother John, is mentioned in the Mont&ucon manuscripts. BibL
Bibliothecarum, p. 778.
FALSB COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE. 179
any use to Constantine.^ Eugenius^ successor^ Pope
Nicholas Y.^ sent to Constantinople^ not an army and
fleets bnt only his Cardinal^ Isidore^ the ex-Metropolitan
of Bussia (Not. 1452) . A very short time passed in
negotiations with him ; but few consented to the union ;
only three Bishops and some of the Clergy received
it ; even the Emperor was not sincere in accepting it.^
The greater part of the Clergy^ and especially the
Monks^ positively refused to take part in any negotia-
tions with an apostate Greek.
Nevertheless, on the 12th of December, 1452, the
spiritual and civil authorities assembled in the Church
of S. Sophia. Cardinal Isidore read the act of union,
(the first time after its proclamation in Florence,) and
in token of the reconciliation of Churches, solemnly
officiated in the Liturgy together with the Greek and
Latin Cl^gy, in which the names of Pope Nicholas and
the ex-Patriarch Gregory were mentioned. But many
persons present at the service would not even take the
antidoron from the officiating clergy.
In the meantime, while this ceremony was going on
in the Church of S. Sophia, crowds of the Orthodox
made their way to the monastery in which Gennadius
Scholarius was, asking him how they were to act.
Gennadius shut himself up in his cell, on the doors of
which were written the prophetical words : ^' Pitiable
Greeks ! why do you still err, and throwing away all
hope on God, seek aid of the Franks ? Why do you,
with the whole of the town, which will soon fall, lose
your Orthodoxy? Be merciful to me, O God ! I tes-
> Fabr. xi. p. 358» 383.
2 As Ducas, a partizaa of the Church of Borne, writes, p. 142.
180 HISTOBT OF THE COUNCIL OF FLOBENCE.
tify before Thee, that I am innocent of this crime.
You see, miserable ones, what is doing around you, and
at the time captivity is approaching you, — ^reject the
faith of your fathers and receive unrighteousness ! I
shall never reject thee, beloved Orthodoxy ; and will not
conceal thee, O holy tradition, while my spirit dwells ia.
this my body/^^
The inspired words of this monk roused the minds of
the people. The clergy and laity cursed the union and
all its present and future upholders. Everywhere cries
resounded : ^^ We want no aid from the Latins, we want
no union, we will not receive the service of the azy-
mites.^^2 Tj^e Orthodox Clergymen sentenced all who
had communed with the Unionists to bear Church
punishment. The great Church was quite empty, for
the Orthodox would not visit it ; Gennadius circulated
pamphlets among the people full of enmity against the
Latins, and exhortations to those of the union to cleanse
their consciences from sin by strict penitence.^
The mental disorder of the inhabitants conduced a
good deal to the success of Mahomet's arms. The be-
sieged inhabitants, instead of concentrating their remain-
ing forces in the defence of the town, continued their reli-
gious animosity to each other. The Orthodox and Latins
were constantly anathematizing each other. At last
Constantinople was taken by Mahomet (May 29th, 1453) .
' This exhortation is contained in Ducas' History, p. 142, and in
manuscript among the works of Gennadins, Fabr. Bibl. G-r. t. xi. p.
259. Both agree with each in the principal points. We quota the
words of both.
2 Ducas, cap. 36.
' Ducas, cap. 37. On the works of Gennadius belonging to this
time, see Benaudot, Fabr. Bibl. Gnec. pp. 358, 359.
FALL OF CONSTANTINOPLE. 181
The Saltan left the Greek Faith untouched^ and ap-
pointed as head of the captive Christians the same
G«nnadius^ who had done so much for Orthodoxy even
in the last disorderly times. He and his successors
were good and strictly Orthodox Pastors of the over-
burdenedy but as yet not fallen Greek Church. In the
fallen Empire^ the Church of the East presents to us a
beautiful example of a nation steadfastly preserving the
pure doctrine of its fathers^ and of faith preserving the
nation whole during the space of four heavy centuries.
Like the Jews in the Babylonian captivity, the Greeks,
on falling into the hands of the Turks, became still
more strongly and firmly attached to their old faith ;
deprived of political liberty, and many worldly advan-
tages inseparate from it, they found their sole consola-
tion in their Orthodox Church. The Popes, by allowing
the capital of Eastern Christianity to perish, only in-
creased the animosity of the Greeks towards Bomanism.
The Church of Russia showed herself a worthy
daughter of the Orthodox Eastern Church, in her rela-
tions to the Florentine union.
With the title of Apostolic Legate to all northern
countries, Isidore, at the close of the Council, returned
from Italy to Russia, in hopes of alluring her to an
union with the Church of Rome. From the capital
of Hungary, he sent off circulars to the Dioceses of
Lithuania, Russia, and Livonia, then under his juris-
diction; informing the Christians of the Latin and
Greek Faith about the union which had taken place
between the Western and Eastern Christians. Isidore
wrote : " You, good Christians of the Constantinopolitan
Church, receive this union with spiritual joy and honour.
182 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
I pray you not to dissent in anything from the Christians
of Borne. And you Latin tribes^ do not avoid the Greeks^
avowed by Borne to be true Christians ; pray in their
churches^ as they will also pray in yours. Confess your
sins to Priests of both sides : from any one of them re*
oeive the Body of Christ alike holy in leavened of
unleavened bread. So the Council^ held in Florence,
bids you do.'^
In the Bussian territories^ subjected to the influence
of Latin heterodox power^ Isidore could sooner meet
with persons inclined to receive the union, than in au-
tocratic Bussia. But even in the former places his zeal
met with an obstacle in the circumstance that Casimir,
Grand Duke of Lithuania, had declared not for Pope
Eugenius, but for the Council of Basle and Pope Felix
elected by it.^ In Volhynia Isidore ordained Daniel as
Bishop, who had agreed to the union, and then tried to
defend the Latinizing Clergy from the hatred the Or-
thodox felt towards them, by means of his ypaf^iiaroi.^
In Kieff Duke Alexander gave a gramma to Isidore, as
to ^^ his father, the Metropolitan,'^ over all his dukedom.
The Kieff manuscripts affirm, nevertheless, that Isidore
was expelled from KieflF.^
In the spring of 1441, Isidore came to Moscow,
bearing a very polite letter fix)m the Pope to the Grand
Duke. The clergy and laity impatiently awaited the
^ Weissenberg, die Chrossen kirchenyersaml. 15 und 16 Jahrhund. xi.
b. 8. 434.
^ On Daniel, see History of the Bussian Empire, t. v., 311 ; and
the Historical Acts, published by the Archaeological Committee, t. i.
n. 52.
3 The gramma of the 5th of Feb. 1441, is printed in the Historical
Acts, t. i. n. 259.
ISIDORE AT MOSCOW. 188
Metropolitan in the Cathedral of the Assumption.
Isidore came surrounded by a number of nobles^ pre-
ceded by the Latin Cross. Belying on the simplicity
and ignorance of his fold^ he acted in a more decisive
manner than his brethren in Constantinople. During
the first Liturgy^ the Pope's name was mentioned^ and
at the end of the service Isidore's Archdeacon read the
Florentine decree &om the ambo. All these news^ as
yet unheard of in the Russian Churchy astonished both
the clergy and laity very much. No one knew what to
think of what was seen and heard. But the Grand
Duke Basil Basilievitch^ burning with zeal for the pure
doctrine of the Church, solemnly, in the very Church,
exposed the apostate Isidore, called him a false pastor,
a corrupter of souls, a heretic, and at last ordered the
unworthy Metropolitan to be led down from his throne ;
and, confining him in the Tchudoff Monastery, as-
sembled a Council of Bishops and the higher grades of
the Clergy to examine the decree of the Florentine
Council. When it was found to be contrary to the
ancient Orthodox doctrine, and when Arsenius, the
companion of Isidore, had explained the way mat-
ters had been conducted in Florence, then the Grand
Duke ordered efforts to be made to incline Isidore to
repentance. But all was in vain. Remaining in con-
finement the whole of the summer, the pseudo-Metro-
politan fled in the autumn from Moscow to Tver, very
likely in hopes of meeting with a better reception there,
as the Duke of Tver had sent off one of his boyars
with him to the Council. But even in Tver he was re-
ceived no better. The Grand Duke of Tver arrested
him. Isidore managed however to escape, and fled to
184 HISTORY OF THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
Novgorodok of Lithuania^ and then to Rome, with the
bad news of the frustration of the Papal plans. Thus^
the Council of Florence, instead of reconciling the
Church of Great Russia with Rome, or causing her to
depart from Orthodoxy, only offered this Church an
opportunity of showing her aversion &om Romanism.
CHAPTER X.
A FEW WOBDS ABOUT THE CoirNCIL.
After having shown from the report of the Eastern
Bishops and the Council of Constantinople what view
the Orthodox Church had of the lawless Council of
Florence, it is now unnecessary to make any further
remarks to justify this view. It will be quite suffi-
cient to take a short view of what was done at the
Council, and how it was done. From the Acts of
this Council, and the circumstances preceding and fol-
lowing it, we see very plainly that the motives which
impelled the principal agents in the Council did not
breathe of God^s Spirit; that it was not those prin-
ciples that served as a foundation for the union, which
the Spirit of God requires ; not those means were em-
ployed to strengthen the union of the Church which
agree with religion and the fear of God. Consequently
the enterprise was shattered, as an enterprise of man,
not blessed by Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church,
therein justifying the saying of old : " If this counsel, or
this work, he ofmeriy it mil come to nought" (Acts v. 38.)
POLITICAL MOTIVES AT FLORENCE^ 185
Looking over the circumstances which preceded the
Florentine Council^ and had paved the way to it^ we see
£rom the very first glance that it was no sincere, holy
desire of the peace in the Church ; but strange, worldly
motives, which impelled the Emperor and Pope to un-
dertake the reinstation of the ancient peace between
the Latins and Greeks. The Emperor had hoped by
means of this union to obtain help from the head of the
Christian West against the Turks, who had hardly left
him anything but the walls of Constantinople. The
Pope, on the other hand, proposing to the Emperor to
assemble a Council in Italy, was far from wishing that
the causes of disagreement between the Churches should
undergo lawful investigation by a Council. This was
only the wish of the Greeks, to which, as he says him-
self, he acceded from condescension.
But even when allowing the discussions and disputes
on the dogmas of faith to take place in the Council, he
did not at all mean to agree with the Greeks, should
they even prove the justness of their doctrine. He
negotiated with them, in hopes of getting the Eastern
Church into his own hands. He convened a Council
in Ferrara, simply with the object of opposing it to
that of Basle. By inviting the Greeks he gave the
Council an appearance of being an (Ecumenical one,
and thereby deprived the opposition Council of this
title ; for two (Ecumenical Councils could not be held
at one and the same time. And how much cunning
was resorted to by both parties, in consequence of the
different views nourished by them! The Pope, to ex-
ecute his plans, avails himself of a consent forced from
the weaker party in the Council of Basle. The Papal
186 HISTORY OT THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE.
l^ate assures the Greeks that the Council of Basle is
reconciled to the Pope. On the arrival of vessels from
the Council of Basle^ the Papal legate and the legate
from Bafile try to overreach one another in gaining over
the Greeks by the most tempting promises. At the
same time^ among the Greeks also^ means were taken
to ensure success at the Council following, agreeably
with the Emperor^s views. Wishing to give the Council
the appearance of being an (Ecumenical one^ the Em-
peror takes with him to Italy the vicars of the Eastern
Patriarchs^ but himself tells them whom to choose, de-
mands credentials not too strict for them^ and then^
conformably to his own views, more than once changes
their appointments. Can a work, begun with such mo-
tives, and executed by such means, be blessed and
sanctified by the grace of the Holy Ghost ?
Then commence the acts of this Council, first trans-
acted in private, and afterwards solemn sessions. The
Greeks prove the error of the Latin doctrine on purga-
tory, the injustice of the addition to the Creed, and the
doctrine contained in it. They adduce the plainest words
from Holy Scripture, the testimonies of the QScumenical
Councils, and the Fathers of the Church, to prove their
words. They refute the Latin arguments, expose the
interpolations made in the testimonies of the Fathers
adduced by the Latins ; and all in vain. The Latins
dispute against what is self-evident, and induce the
Greeks to agree to what has been anathematised by the
OScumenical Councils. Does not this evince an endea-
vour to make the one, holy. Catholic Church to contra-
dict her own self?
The public disputes are finished. John Falseologus
B£AL CHARACTER OF THE COUNCIL. 187
gives in to his stubborn opponent; favourers of the
union appear ; and the opinion refuted by the Greeks
is put as its comer-stone. What efforts must have
been made^ what cunning applied to found an unsure
peace on so weak a foundation! The Greeks are
innched in their means of subsistence^ which the Pope
IlAd taken on his own hands; the Emperor is loaded
with promises^ which no one thought of fulfilling or
even could fulfil; various formulas are devised^ so that
the disputed doctrine might be satisfactorily expressed
for both parties; forged testimonies of the Fathers
are adduced ; at one time votes are allowed to be given^
and at another^ the very same persons are deprived
of this right ; the Greeks opposing the union are per-
suaded by means of promises^ rewards^ or derision ;
the Latins do not begrudge their money. At last^
by means of different falsehoods^ the Latins apparently
attain a superiority over the Greeks^ with the help of
three traitors to Orthodoxy.^ Is such a Council to
* bave the right of calling itself (Ecumenical? Were
affairs ever so conducted and such decrees made in
(Ecumenical Councils? Can such a Council give its
decrees the force of the words of the Holy Ghost^ like
true (Ecumenical Councils ? If the (Ecumenical dig-
nity of this Council is wished to be founded on the
circumstance^ that there were present at it the repre-
' Here we might well mention the opinion of a learned Latin, a person
**near to Pope Eugenius, namely, Amhromu Trovenari, He writes :
While in Florence I was obliged to hear and see things done^ which
could not but make an impression on me, who had been ever used to
quite other things. To say truth, I more willingly spend my time with
the peasants of our monastery, than with the pillars of the earth, and
eiVtti with the Pope of Borne." xi. s. 423, 424.
188 HISTORY or THE COUNCIL OP FLORENCE.
sentatives of the five ancient patriarchal sees ; we mast
not forget also^ that during the Fatriarch^s lifetime^
three Vicars of the three Patriarchal sees did not agree
to the union, and only two of the five gave their vot0
in its favour. After Joseph's death no one was cowL^
missioned to vote in the name of the Constantinopolita^
Patriarch; the apostate of Antioch met a firm opponoirt
and witness of the truth in Mark of Ephesus. Thus,
even in appearance, there was never any actual agree*
ment of all the patriarchal sees to the union with the
Church of Rome. But even Mark's voice alone, is
sufficient to prove that the Canons of the Florentine
Council are not (Ecumenical ones : for Mark spoke in
defence not of his own private opinion, which might
have been erroneous, but had on his side the testimo-
nies of (Ecumenical Councils.
The enterprise unlawfully begun nearly broke down
in Florence. The obstinacy of both parties when dis-
puting about the authority and rights of the Pope,
nearly deprived Eugenius of the first success, which had
cost him so dear. At the time of the very union the
reconciled parties shunned each other ; mutual coolness
and distrust divided them as before. On returning to
Constantinople the Bishops did not conceal their aver-
sion from the supposed Church union. The Emperor
John, during the remaining years of his reign, did not
care to proclaim the act of the union to the people,
notwithstanding that two Patriarchs of Constantinople
favoured the union. Electing such Patriarchs, he appa-
rently kept up the union with the Church of Rome,
having his political views for doing so, but at the same
time he would not introduce the union into his owu
CONCLUSION. 189
empire. The Orthodox would not even listen to it.
Mark of Ephesus and his party exposed its unlawful-
ness. The Eastern Patriarchs pronounced judgment
against the union first in Jerusalem^ and then in Con-
stantinople. The miserable effort of the last Emperor
of Constantinople to proclaim the union in his city was
no act of the Church, and was put down by God.
Thus, the union of Churches proclaimed in Florence
was, {a) undertaken without the Greeks being persuaded
of the justice of the Latin doctrine ; {b) was unlawfully
brought to pass j and (c) very lawfully rejected.
JOSXPB 1IA0TEBB AKD CO., PlllKTlBBS, ALDBfiBOATS 0TBSBT, LOHDOK.
PTJBLISHED BY JOSEPH MASTEES,
ALDERSGATE STREET AND NEW BOND STREET.
HISTORY OF THE HOLY EASTERN CHURCH. General Intro-
duction. By the Rev. J. M. Nbalb, D.D. Two vols. ^£2.
"Treats of the Greography, Ecclesiology, Liturgries, Calendar, &c. There is
much of interest to the general reader, and the author's well established reputa-
tion is guarantee that there is no lack of learned research." — Eceleriatic.
" We must express our admiration of the research and indefatigable industry of
the author, and our high sense of the addition he has made to our theological
literature in this very learned publication." — Er^iah Remew.
APPENDIX TO THE INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY OF
THE HOLY EASTERN CHURCH ; containing a List of the Sees. Is.
THE HISTORY OF THE PATRIARCHATE OF ALEXANDRIA.
By the Rev. J. M. Nbalb, D.D. Two vols. 248.
Contains its history and foundation firom its apostolic founder, through the annals
of its earlier patriarchs— The Persecutions and Martyrs — The SabeUian, Arian,
and Nestorian Heresies, up to the time of Mahomet — Its Mediaeval History and its
Decline — The gjeat gulf between East and West up to the present time, when it is
a shadow at its former self, "persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not
destroyed."
DOCUMENTS CONNECTED WITH THE PRESENT STATE
AND MISSIONS OF THE EASTERN CHURCH. Translated with Notes
by the Rev. J. M. Nbalb, D.D. 5s.
CoNTBNTS : Catholic Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism ; Letter to a Converted
Protestant, on Purgatory, and the State of the Dead j Letter to the Abb^ Bautain,
on the Great Men of the Russian Church ; Letter to a Roman Convert ; Compa-
rison of the Consecration of Bishops in the East and West ; Russian Missions, &c.
Eight Essays are by M. A. N. Mouravieff, author of the " History of the Russian
Church ;" the Ninth by Innocent, late Archbishop of Odessa ; and the Tenth is hy
an Athenian Priest.
PRIVATE DEVOTIONS as enjoined by the Holy Eastern Church for
the use of her Members. Translated firom the original, is.
THE DOCTRINE OF THE RUSSIAN CHURCH, being the Primer
or Spelling Book, the Shorter and Longer Catechisms, and a Treatise on the
Duty of a Parish Priest. Translated firom the Slavonic-Russian by the Rev.
R. W. Blackmorb, late Chaplain to the Russian Company in Cronstadt;
Rector of Donhead S. Mary, Wilts. 8s.
The purpose of this volume is to set before the reader the Doctrine of the Russian
Church, in that form in which it is actually inculcated upon children, lay people,
and clergy, firom Baptism to Ordination.
HARMONY OF ANGLICAN DOCTRINES WITH THE DOC-
TRINE OF THE CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH OF THE EAST.
By the Rev. R. W. Blackmorb, M.A. 3s.
These notices and extracts have been put together with the view of showing that
Anglican Divinity is not necessarily irreconcileable with that of the Eastern Catho-
lics, and it is hoped that the reader will find no point omitted on which any well-
informed member of either communion would be likely to suspect disagreement.
HISTORY OF THE CHURCH OF RUSSIA. By A. N. Mouravieff.
Translated by the Rev. R. W. Blackmorb, M.A. 10s. 6d.
" Mouravieff gives a clear, succinct, and regular account of the events which
marked the introduction and progress of Christianity in his native country ; he
notices every material incident, places it in its due light, and affords it that atten-
tion and space its importance demands." — Preface.
PRAYERS AND THANKSGIVINGS FOR THE HOLY COM-
MUNION. Chiefly for the use of the Clergy. Translated from Coptic, Arme-
nian, and other Eastern Rituals. By the Rev. S. C. Malan, M.A., Vicar of
Broadwindsor. is. 6d. ; limp antique calf, 3s. 6d.
MEDITATIONS FOR EVERY WEDNESDAY AND FRIDAY IN
LENT, ON A PRAYER OF S. EPHRAEM THE SYRIAN. Translated from
the Russian. To which are added. Short Homilies for Passion Week, fh)m
S . Chrysostom, S. Severian, and S. Ephraem. By the Rev. S. C. Malan. 3s. 6d.
London : Jo!<eph Mastbrb. Aldersgate Street, and New Bond Street.
^l^tala^ml it §^t\iahBiu Wiaxhn,
PUBLISHED BT
J. MASTEBS, 33, ALDEBSGATE STBEET,
AND 78, NEW BOND STEEET.
THEOLOGICAL WORKS.
ATKINS. — Thbee Essays, on the Eternal Sonship op
Christ; The Kingdom of Christ the Throne of
David; The Resurrection. By the Rev. Walter B.
Atkins, M.A,, Trinity College, Dublin, late Perpetual
Curate of S. Mary Magdalene, Harlow. 3s, 6d.
BADGER. — ^The Nestorians and their Rituals. By the
Rev. G. P. Badger, MA., East Indian Chaplain at Aden,
Two vols. With numerous Illustrations and maps. 368.
*' a valuable contribution to our knowledge of the East. The second volume
is of deep interest to the theological student, and the relig^ious public gene-
ral]^.'* — Morning Post.
** The whole account is very interesting^— but that which wiU make his work
essential to the Oriental historian is the fact that he was resident at Mosul
during the horrid massacre of the Nestorians by the Emir of Jezeerah : more
valuable still are the translations of the Offices. No liturgical library can
possibly dispense with this book.'* — Morning Chronicle.
"The author has not only travelled, but laboured among the Eastern Chris-
tians, and has judiciously divided the information he had to impart." — John
Bull.
"Contains a great mass of the most valuable information.** — English
Mtview,
BLACKMORE. — ^The Doctrine of the Russian Church.
being the Primer or Spelling Book* the Shorter and
Longer Catechisms, and a Treatise on the Duty of a Parish
Priest. Translated from the Slavonic-Russian by the Rev.
R. W. Blackmore, late Chaplain to the Russian Company
in Cronstadt; Rector of Donhead S. Mary, Wilts. 8s.
The purpose of this volume is to set before the reader the Doctrine of the
Russian Church, in that form in which it is actually inculcated upon childroi,
lay people, and clergy, from Baptism to Ordination.
BLACKMORE. — Harmony of Anglican Doctrines with
the Doctrine of the Catholic and Apostolic
Church of the East. 3s.
These notices and extracts have been put together with the view of showing
that Anglican Divinity is not necessarily irreconcileable with that of ttie
Eastern Catholics, and it is hoped that the reader will find no point omitted
on which any well-informed member of either communion would be likely to
suspect disagreement.
PART LB 1
\
Theological and Scholaatie Works,
BLACKMOBE. — ^History op the Church of Russu. By
A. N. Mouravieflf. Translated by the Rev. R. W. Black-
more, M.A, 10s. 6d.
Mouravieff gives a clear, succinct, and regular account oS. the events which
marked the introduction and progress of Christianity in his native country;
he notices every material incident, places it in its due light, and aflbrds it that
attention and space its importance demands. — Pr^ace,
BRECHIN. — ^Theological Defence for the Right Rev.
Alexander Penrose Forbes, D.C.L., Bishop of Brechin,
on a Presentment by the Rey. W. Henderson and others,
on certain Points concerning the Doctrine of the Holy
Eucharist. 6s.
BRITTON.— HoKB Sacramentales. The Sacramental Ar-
ticles of the Church of England vindicated from recent
misrepresentations, and illustrated by the Writings of the
Compilers and last Editor, and by other Documents pub-
lished under the sanction of the Church between the years
1536 and 1571. By the Rev. T. H. Britton, M.A., late
Pusey and EUerton Hebrew Scholar, Oxford. 8vo., 6s.
" a very elaborate and learned work, detailing the sentiments of the Re-
formers in opposition to the sentiments of Mr. Gorham.*' — English Review,
" We commend the treatise of Mr. Britton to the attentive study of all to
whom the baptismal question appears enveloped in doubt, uncertainty or am-
bigwty; and especially to the Clergy and to Candidates for Holy Ordera,
whom it behoves not only to have clear and settled views on the suqjcct, but
to be able to explain and defend them by conclusive arguments." — John Bull,
** I thank you for the valuable book which you have given me and the
Church."— BtffAop qf Exeter at hie Visitation at S. Peter% Tiverton, April
264A» 1851.
CARTEE — The Doctrine of the Priesthood in the
Church of England. By the Rev. T. T. Carter, M.A.,
Rector of Clewer. Post 8vo., 4s.
'* A book containing a great deal in a short space, and putting forward in
plain words, and with a clear reference to broad principles, and to the testi-
mony of both the Primitive Church and Holy Scripture — a doctrine which un-
happily needs to be well stated at the present moment. The special merits
are, first, its depth, and then as a consequence of this, the power with, which
it brings home to its readers the consequences involved in the popular and
shallow views on the sutiject." — Chtardian.
** Thoroughly discusses its subject, meets common objections, and places
the Doctrine on a right and firm basis.** — Clerical Journal.
CHAMBERS. — ^The Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist,
AS Expounded by Herbert Thorndike, DJD. With
* Notes (being a digested series of Authorities up to the
year 1720, on the points raised in Archdeacon Denison's
case), and a Preface by J. D. Chambers, MA., Recorder
of New Sarum. 2s. 6d.
" The body of notes has a permanent and technical importance. So skflfUly
is the Catena set out that it becomes a conspectus of Anglican Doctrine on
the sutdect.** — Christian Remembrancer,
2
I
J, Ma$ter9t London.
COMPER.— The Distinctive Teaching of the British
Churches stated and maintained in a Series of
Lectures. By the Key. John Comper^ M.A.9 Incumbent
of Nairn, N.B. 12mo., cloth, 4s. 6(L
DENISON. — Saravia on the Holy Eucharist. The Ori-
ginal Latin from a MS. in the British Museum hitherto
unpublished. The Translation by the Archdeacon of
Taunton. Demy Svo., 78. 6d.
"We may be fhankful for any cause which has brought b^ore the world a
work so curious and interesting. It contains vay high and Catholic language
on the Eucharist : the translation is managed with ability and scholarship." —
ChruHan Remembrancer.
DENISON.— The Defence of the Archdeacon of Taun-
ton, IN ITS complete form ; including all the Evidence
which was either not admitted by, or was tended before,
the Court. Royal 8yo., 10s.
" Necessary to form a fall judgment of the whole proceeding."— C/«rica2
Journal,
DENISON. — ^Proceedings against the Archdeacon of
Taunton in 1854, 1855, 1856. 8vo., cloth, 58.
DUKE. — Systematic Analysis of Bishop Butler's Ana-
logy. By the Rev. Henry H. Duke, M.A., Vicar of
Westbury, Wilts. Ss. 6d., interleaved 5s.
" Carefully and ably done. No work in our lang^uage needs the aid of an
interpreter more than Butler's most masterly tr^tise, or better repays any
amount of labour that may be bestowed upon it." — EcclenoiHc,
DICKINSON.— List of Old Service Books according to
the uses of the Anglican Church, "With the pos-
sessors. By F. H. Dickinson, Esq., M.A. 38. 6d.
ECCLESIASTIC : a Magazine relating to the affairs of the
Church, Education, &c. This Magazine is now published
in Monthly Farts at Is. each. 20 vols, bound, £9. Sent
free by post for 12s. per annum, paid in advance.
These volumes form as it were a library of Theology. They contain articles
and reviews on every important topic and work of the day as they affect the
Church — ^whether doctrinal, practical, parochial, devotional, or controversial
—and the rule on which the magazine is conducted is that of setting forth the
distinctive principles of the Church boldly and uncompromisingly.
*' The Church of England has a very able champion in this poriodical, which
is conducted with Judgment and learxnng."— Morning Chronicle,
FLO WEB ^The Three Books op Theophilus to Autoly-
cus ON THE Christian Religion. Translated, with Notes,
by the Rev. W. B. Flower, B.A., of Magdalene College,
Cambridge, English Chaplain at Baden Baden. 38. 6d.
3
Tkeohgieal and Seholaaiie Works.
FOXi^ — ^The Church in the Cloistebs ; or Monks and Mo-
nasteries. Being a History of the Monastic system in
England and the various Orders. By the B«y. Samael
Fox, M.A., F.S.A., Rector of Morley, JDerbyshire. 5s.
Contents :— Origin of Monachism.— Eastern Monks.— Orders in Britain.—
S. Patrick.— Anglo-Saxon Monks.— S. Cuthbert.— Yen. Bede.— The DLscipIine.
—Officers.— Buildings.— Schools.— Military Orders.— Its Chradual Decay in
England, &c.
HEYGATE.— Catholic Antidotes. By the Key. W. E.
Heygate, M.A., author of "Care of the Soul,** "Evening
of Life/' « Ember Hours," &c. Post 8vo., 68. 6d.
Contents: — On the Prevalence of Error and the Appeal to Antiquity,
Chap. I. — On the Inspiration of the Divine Scriptures. — Chap. II. Bi^tism, a
Witness to Original Sin.— Chap. III. Original Sin in Relation to the supposed
Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin.— Chap. IV. The Eucharist and
the Atonement.— Chap. V. The Penal Due of Sin.— Chap. VI. The Eucharist
and the Incarnation. — Chap. VII. Predestination Guarded.
" Must have cost considerable labour ; it is a real boon to the Church,
as the subject to which it directs attention is of the greatest importance. Any
man does good service who insists on the appeal to antiquity. Mr. Heygate
discusses at length, and as we think successfully, the otgection that antiquity
if resorted to, Ic^s men to Rome.*' — Christian Remembrancer.
"We have read it with deep interest, and to our mind, it has supplied not
only matter for interesting thought, but for solving some painful questions
which the present day brings forward." — Clerical Journal,
HEYGATE. — ^Embee Hours. For the use of his younger
brethren, the Deacons and Priests of the Church of Eng-
land. 3s. in cloth antique.
Contents :— Chapter I. Study. — II. Detail with persons. — III. Detail with
things. — rv. Tone. — ^V. Scrutiny. — ^VI. Perseverance. — Appendix.
" This manual will prove both seasonable and serviceable, and many will de*
rive valuable g^uidance and instruction in their vocation." — Clerical Journal,
" A ftdl manual of hints to the clergy, and a real and practical guide to the
ministry. That such books are among us and of us is a sign of g^ood, but that
such principles are at work, and that tiiey must be influential is more than a
sign." — Christian Remembrancer,
IRONS. — ^Baptismal Regeneration. The Judgments of the
Church Court of Arches, and the State Court of Privy
Council, in parallel pages ; also, the Opinions of the present
English and Scottish Bishops ; with Appendices, contain-
ing, Opinion of the Irish Church, a Bisnop's right to ex-
amine Clergy, and Note on the Rev. W. Goode's Letter 5
to which is prefixed, a Discourse on Heresy and Open
Questions. By the Rev. W. J. Irons, D.jD., Vicar of
Brompton. Demy 8vo., 3s. 6d.
" Indispensable to all who desire to have even the most moderate collection
of authentic documents connected with this memorable controversy." — Eng^-
' lish Churchman,
" Readers are here in one small volume presented with the means of malring
themselves acquainted with the incidents of a question which becomes hourl^
of more ominous importance." — Morning Post.
4
J. Mastertf London.
IRONS. — On the Whole Docteine of Final Causes, A
Dissertation in Three Parts, with an Introductory Chapter
on the Character of Modem Deism. Demy Svo., price
7s. 6d.
JEBB. — Six Lettees on the Present state of the
Church, advocating the claims of the Church of England^
and deprecating Secessions to Home. By the Key. John
Jebb, A.M., Hector of Peterstow. Is.
LAST WORDS OF AN ENGLISH CATHOLIC. A Record
of Inner Life. Fcap. 8vo., 5s.
" For my brethren and companions' sake I long to trace oat as I compre-
hend now, the glorious change which He designs should be in all effected, by
the gradual transformation of the human being, fallen, but reg^enerate, into
the heavenly likeness of the perfect man." — Preface.
MALAN. — ^Letters to a Young Missionary, By the Rev.
S. C. Malan, M.A., Vicar of Broadwindso^u Is. 6d.
" Not only valuable in themselves, but under existit^ circumstances more
jMoticularly in connection with certain popular cries, point.io what is the want
of Indian Missions — ^that of learned missionaries.'* — Christian Remembrancer.
MANDLEY. — ^Tractarianism (so called by the prejudiced
and misinformed) no Novelty; as exemplified in the
Confession of the Faith and Practice of a Church of Eng-
land man, of the ever memorable epoch, 1688. Edited
by G. F. Mandley, Merchant. 6s.
MORMONS (The). The Dream and the Reality ; or, Leaves
from the Book of Experience of one who left England
to join the Mormons in the City of Zion, and awoke to
a consciousness of their heinous wickedness and foul
abominations. Edited by a Clergyman. Is. 6d. ; paper
cover, Is.
MURRAY. — A Catena of Authorities with regard to
THE Altar and Eucharistic Sacrifice. By the Rev.
F. H. Murray, M.A., Rector of Chislehurst. Is. 6d.
" This is a good collection of opinions on an important sabject firom the early
Fathers down to John Wesley. We thank Mr. Murray for the means thus
afforded ns of forming an opinion." — Clerical Journal.
** Adds another valuable publication to the list of authorities in favour of a
Doctrine otttie Church." — Christian Remembrancer.
NEALE.— History of the Holy Eastern Church. Ge-
neral Introduction. By the Rev. J. M. Neale, M.A. Two
vols., £2.
"Treats of the Geography, Ecclesiology, Liturgies, Calendar, &c. There is
much of interest to the general reader, and the author's well established repu-
tation is g^uarantee that there is no lack of learned research." — Ecclesiastic.
** We must express our admiration of the research and indefatigable industry
of the author, and our high sense of the addition he has made to our theolo-
gical literature in this very learned publication." — English Review.
B 2 5
Theological and Scholastic Works.
/
NEALE. — ^The History op the Pateiarchate of Alex-
andria. Two vols., 248.
Contains its history and foundation from its ai)Ostolic founder, through
the annals of its earlier patriarchs — The Persecutions and Martyrs — ^The Sa-
bellian, Arian, and Nestorian Heresies, up to the time of Mahomet — Its Me-
diaeval History and its Decline— The great g^ between East and West up to
the presmt time, when it is a shadow of its former self, " persecuted, but not
forseiken; cast down, but not destroyed."
NEALE. — Appendix to the introduction to the History
OF THE HOLY EASTERN Church; contammg a List of the
Sees. Is.
NEALE. — ^Medleval Preachers and MEDiiEVAL Preach-
ing. A Series of Extracts, translated from the Sermons
of the Middle Ages, chronologically arranged. With
Notes, and an Introduction. Svo., 7s.
NEALE. — ^Documents connected with the Present
State and Missions of the Eastern Church. Trans-
lated with Notes by the Rev. J. M. Neale, M.A. Ss.
CoNTKNTs : Catholic Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism ; Letter to a Con-
verted Protestant, on Purgatory, and the State of the DcmeuI ; Letter to the
Abb^ Bautidn, on the Great Men of the Russian Church ; Letter to a Roman
Convert; Comparison of the Consecration of Bishops in the East and West;
Russian Missions, &c.
Eight Essays are by M. A. N. Mouravieff, author of the History of the Rus>
sian Church; the ninth by Innocent, late Archbishop of Odessa; and the
Tenth is by an Athenian Priest.
OWEN.— An Introduction to the study of Dogmatic
Theology. By the Rev. Robert Owen, B.D., Fellow and
Dean of Jesus College, Oxford. 12s.
" A very learned and impartial work ; and is evidently the result of immense
reading. It is a volume of which the University of Oxford may well be -proud,
— not being a mere collection of quotations taken at second hand, but a con-
densation of the whole body of Patristic Divines reduced with great skill into
a system of Theology." — Oxford Herald.
" English Theology owes much to Mr. Owen for this valuable work. It is
admirably calculated to introduce young students at once to a wide and most
interesting range of topics. The learning, moderation, and candour of the
writer are conspicuous in every page." — Literary Churchman.
** A readable, and in many respects, a fair, candid, and temperate volume."
— North Britiah Review.
OXLEE. — The Christian Doctrine of the Trinity and
Incarnation considered and maintained on the
Principles of Judaism. By the late Rev. John Oxlee,
M.A., Rector of Molesworth, Hunts. Three Vols. £1. Is.
Vol. I. (1815.) On the Holy Trinity.
Vol. II. (1820.) The Doctrine of the Incarnation.
Vol. III. (1850.) The Doctrine of the Incarnation as to
our Lord's office and work.
6
J, Masters, London,
OXLEE.— Thbeb Sermoks. 68.
Published at three diflbrent times, on the Power, Origin, and Succession of
the Christian Hierarchy in the English Church, with copious and historical
notes and indexes. These sermons bear on the suliiject of Absolution and
the Apostolical Succession, and sujndy valuable information on sutiiects in
agitation at the present day.
OXLEE. — Three Letters to Mb. C. Wellbeloved, (1824)
Tutor of the Unitarian College, New York, occasioned by
his Attack on the Charge of Archdeacon Wrangham.
— Strictures on Separation from the Church. — ^The Atha-
nasian Creed, &c. 2s. 6d.
OXLEE. — ^Three Letters, (1826), Addressed to the Rev.
Frederick Nolan, Vicar of Prittlewell, on his Erroneous
Criticisms and Misstatements in the Christian Remem-
brancer, relative to the Text of the Heavenly Witnesses,
&c. 38. 6d.
OXLEE. — ^Three Letters (1842) humbly addressed to
THE Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, on the Inex-
pediency and Futility of any attempt to Convert the Jews
to the Christian Faith in the way and manner hitherto
practised, being a General Discussion of the whole Jewish
Question. 3s.
OXLEE. — ^Three more Letters (1845) in continuation of
the same subject. 3s.
OXLEE.— The Mysterious Stranger; or. Dialogues on
Doctrine. — ^Dialogue I. between the Jew Rabbi and the
Stranger. By the late Rev. John Oxlee. Edited by his
Son, the Rev. John Oxlee, Perpetual Curate of Oversilton,
Diocese of York. Is.
PALMER. — ^Dissertations on some Subjects Relating
TO THE "Orthodox" Communion. By the Rev. W.
Palmer, M.A. 10s. 6d.
" Cannot be otherwise than welcome to the theological student. We hail
with satisfaction the appearance of this volume, which abounds with interest-
ing data on the subject."— JbAn Bull.
" The latest and perhaps the ablest treatise on the subject. Mr. Palmer's
intimate acquaintance with Russia as well as with Greece and Constantinople,
gives him a grasp of his sub{ject which renders him always instructive." —
English Churchman.
" The masterly way in which every point is handled leaves nothing to be
supplied." — Christian Remembrancer.
** Mr. Palmer enters learnedly and at length into the various particulars,
endeavouring to discover in each some misapprehensions that might be re-
moved if both parties would approach each other in a firiendly and fraternal
spirit." — Guardian,
7
\
Tkeologiedl and Seholaatie Works.
PRESBYTERIAN CLERGYMAN LOOKING FOR THE
CHURCH. (Abridged.) 12mo., cloth, 3s. ; cheap edit 28.
** Written by one bom and nuri^ured in the bosom of Fresbyterianism, who
came in due time, by the blessing of God, to see the Church most dearly
identiiled by doctrine and usage with that built upon the foundation of the
Apostles and Prophets." — Pre/ace.
REVELATION (THE) OF JESUS CHRIST, Explained
agreeably to the analogy of Holy Scripture. By a Clergy-
man. 14s.
'* It must be confessed that he has sought the key in the only place in whidi
it can be found, in the Holy Scriptures, in a proper spirit, and by a proper
light."— afomina' Post.
RUSSELL. — ^The Judgment of the Anglican Chubch
g Posterior to the Reformation) on the Sufficiency of
OLY ScRiPTUBE, &c. By the Rev. J. F. Russell, B.C.L.,
incumbent of S. Mary's, Grreenhithe. 10s. 6d.
SHIPLEY. — The Purgatory of Prisoners : or, an Inter-
mediate Stage between the Prison and the Public. By
the Rev. Orby Shipley, M.A. 3s. 6d.
" Performed in a very creditable manner." — Clerical Journal.
" For ability and benevolence commends itself to every social reformer and
philanthropist. The style is original, clear, and pungent."— Jo An BtUl,
SPELMAN. — History and Fate of Sacrilege. By Sir
Henry Spelman, Knight. New edition. Demy 8vo., cloth^
10s. 6d.
" Reflects high credit on all parties concerned." — English Churchman.
** It is fall of learning, and bears everywhere the stamp of an author tho-
roughly in earnest. It is throughout an appeal to facts as testimony to the
fixed principles of a sort of Divine Jurisprudoice. Sir Henry Spelman appeals
throughout to the law of God against the fearful wrongs wluch the Church
has undergone." — Ecclesiastic.
SPIRIT OF THE CBURCH (The). A Selection of Articles
from the Ecclesiastic. Post 8vo., 7s. 6d.
A new Contents has been printed, which may be had gratis, containing a
List of the Books on which the articles are written.
•* Most gladly would we see it in the hands of everyone now preparing for
Holy Orders ; and most firmly do we believe that if it were by them truthfully
and carefolly studied, it would do more to fit them for a wise and devoted dis-
(diarge of their several duties than any work we know suited to this age." —
Oxford Herald.
** As a collection of illustrative essays tiiey have high value. The aim of the
series is entirely practical— they illustrate principles, and show the Sacramental
theory of the Church at work." — Christian Remembrancer.
" Contains many valuable papers, and in aU of them much practical infor-
mation is given. We do not know a volume in which so much that is pecu-
liarly important to clergymen is presented in a condensed form." — Clerical
Journal.
** Whether viewed as a manual of Ecclesiastical History and precedent, an
analytical record of clerical ceremonies, or an expositor of and aid to pastoral
duly, we think the appearance of this work wUl be hailed grateftilly." — Jofm
BuU.
8
J. MaaterSt London,
"WILKINS. — ^Threescore Years and Ten. By George
Wilkins, D.D., Archdeacon of Nottingham. Dedicated to
the Bishop of Lincoln. 38. 6d.
CoNTSNTs: — Advanced Age; Uncertain Extent of life; The Septuage-
narian } Past Scenes of Life ; Country Churchvard and Epitaphs ; Heathen
Elysium ; Hades ; Primitive Christian!^ ; Scotcn Churches ; Cathedrals ; The
Faithftd Christian.
" A pleasant, indeed affecting, memorial of a good man's sunset time.**—
ChriaHan Remembrancer.
WHYTEHEAD.— College Life. Letters to an Underjgra-
duate. By the late Key. Thomas Whytehead, ^fA.^
Pellow of S. John's College, Cambridge, and Chaplain to
the Bishop of New Zealand. 12Dio., cloth, 28. 6a. New
edition, Edited by the Rev. W. Griffin, M.A., Vicar of
Ospringe, Kent.
Contents: — I. Origin and End of the Collegiate System. — II. College
Discipline.— III. College Rooms.— IV. College Chapel.— V. The Hall.— VI,
TTie Lecture Room.— VII. The library.— VIII. College Friends.
" A great deal of wisdom and much sincere piety in these letters."—- ClericeU
Journal.
" It is no slight service to put fbrth for the members of these noble Institu-
tions right notions as to their spirit and principles, and to enable them to see
how under the existing system they may be carried out into action in every
department of the Collegiate life." — Eccleidattic,
THEOLOGICAL PAMPHLETS,
ALDRICH. — Church Rates and the Parochial System.
A Pamphlet dedicated to His Grace the Duke of Marl-
borough. With References to the Minutes of Evidence
brought before the House of Commons in 1851, and the
House of Lords in 1859. By the Rev. John Cobbold
Aldrich, M.A., Incumbent of S. Lawrence, Ipswich. Is.
BARTER.— A Few Wobds on the Progress of Infide-
lity IN London during the Spring of 1857. By the
late Rev. W. B. Barter, M.A., Oriel College, Oxford. Is.
BARTER. — ^A Few Words on the Restoration of the
Jews to the Promised Land, and on the Millen-
nium. |d.
BARTER. — The Gainsaying of Core in the Nineteenth
Century. Addressed to all who call upon the Name of
Jesus Christ our Lord. Second edition. 6d.
BLUNT.— Ecclesiastical Restoration and Reform. No.
I- Suggestions on Church Rates, Parish Officers, &c.
No. II. The Education Question Practically Considered.
By the Rev. W. Blunt, M.A. Is. each.
9
Theological and SehoUutie Works.
CONFESSION, AN EARNEST EXHORTATION TO.
Fcap. 8vo. 4d.
CHAMBERLAIN. — Is what sense may the Holy Eucha-
BIST BE CALLED THE Lord's Suppeb ? A Letter to
the Bishop of S. Andrew's, &c. By the Rev. T. Cham-
berlain, M.A. 3d.
DENISON CASE (The):—
Paper Delivered into the Registry of the Diocese
OF Bath and Wells, Sept. 30, 1856, by G. A. Denison,
Clerk, M.A., Vicar of East Brent, and Archdeacon of
Taunton. To which is prefixed. The Declaration
OF the Court, Aug. 12, 1856, as filed by the Court
Royal 4to., Is. A Cheap Edition, for distributipn.
Demy 8yo., 2d. each, or 10s. per 100.
Considerations upon the Opinion of the Court at
Bath, and the Exposition of Articles XXVUI. and
XXIX. therein set forth. By the Rev. C. S. Grueber.
2nd edit.. Is.
A Letter to His Grace the Archbishop of Canter-
bury, with Statements and Documents relating to the
Trial of the Archdeacon of Taunton. By the Rev. C. S.
Grueber. 3rd edit.. Is.
A Second Letter to His Grace the Archbishop of
Canterbury, being an Exposure of the Rev. W.
Goode's book. By uie Rev. C. S. Grueber. 2s. 6d.
A Letter to the Right Hon, Stephen Lushinqton,
Legal Assessor to His Grace the Abp. of Canterbury
in the Trial of the Yen. the Archdeacon of Taunton.
By the Rev. C. S. Grueber. 4d.
A Rejoinder to the Reply of the Rev. A. N. Bull.
By the Rev. C, S. Grueber. 4d.
Article XXIX. and Article XXVIII. clause 3, con-
sidered in reference to the Three Sermons of the Arch-
deacon of Taunton, with additional matter and references
to S. Augustine and other Fathers. By the Rev. C. S.
Grueber. 7th edit. 3d. on a broad sheet, or in demy
8vo., 6d.
Eighteen Facts connected with the Commission at
Clevedon and the Court at Bath, in the case of
Ditcher v. Denison, collected from Published Docu-
ments. 4d.
10
J. MaaierBf London,
i
DENISON. — ^Why should tbb Bishops continue to six
IN THE House of Lobds ? Is.
DENISON.— The National Society. A Letter to the
Bey. Canon Wordsworth^ and to the schoohnasters of
the Church of England. With Appendix. Is.
DESPBEZ. — ^Babylon the Gkeat, neithee Bome Pagan,
NOB Papal, but Jebusalem. By the Bev. P. S. Despres,
B.D. 3d.
DOCUMENTS BELATING TO THE JEBUSALEM BISH-
OPBIC. Is.
FLO WEB.— Non-Episcopal Obdees. A Letter. By the
Bev. W. B. Flower, B.A. 2s. 6d.
FLOWEB. — On the Chubch and Sacbaments. A Letter.
Price 6d.
J FOWLE. — The Epistle to the Hebbews the Epistle op
S. Paul. By the Bev. W. H. Fowle, M.A., Curate of
Almondsbury. Is. Od.
FBASEB.— The Convocations of the Chubch of Eng-
land. With an Appendix. By the Bev. W. Eraser,
B.C.L., Vicar of Alton, Staffordshire. Is.
GBUEBEB. — ^HoLY Baptism : a complete Statement of the
Church's Doctrine. By the Bev. C. S. Grueber, B.A.
Is. 6d.
GBUEBEB.—- Plain Discoubse on the One Faith. Is.
HUMBLE. — ^A Letteb to the Bight Bev. the Lobd
Bishop of S. Andbew's, &c., on the occasion of His
Lordship's recent Charge to his Clergy. With an Appen-
dix. By the Bev. Henry Humble, M.A., Canon and Pre-
centor of S. Ninian's Cathedral, Perth. 2s. 6d.
INGLE. — Bitual Beauty no mabk of Bomanism. By the
Bev. John Ingle, M.A. 6d.
LEE. — ^An Addbess to the Chubghmen of England on
the Incbease in the Episcopate. By the Bev. A. T.
Lee, M.A., Bector of Ahoghill, Ireland. 6d.
DB. LUSHINGTON'S JUDGMENT UPON « ORNAMENTS
OF THE CHUBCH," Considered by a Parish Priest.
2nd edition. 6d.
MC COLL. — ^A Letteb to the Bight Hon. W. E. Glad-
stone, on the case of Mr. Cheyne, and the Bishop of
Brechin. By the Bev. Malcolm Mc Coll. 6d.
11
Theohgieal and Scholastic Works,
MILNEK. — ^Few wobds on Baptismal Kegenebation,
By the Rev. J. Milner, B.A. 6d.
NEALE. — ^The Twenty-ninth Canon, and Reasons foe
ITS Abbooation. a Letter to the Lord Bishop of Oxford.
By the Rev. J. M. Neale, M.A., Warden of SackvUle
College. Demy 8vo. 6d.
RAINE. — ^The Restobation of the Jews, and the Duties
of English Churchmen in that respect. By Rosa Raine,
author of "Rosa's Summer Wanderings/' '*Floreat Ec-
clesia,'' &c. Is.
RUSSELL. — ^Anglican Obdination Valid. A Refutation of
certain Statements in " The Validity of Anglican Ordina-
tions Examined, by the Very Reverend Peter Richard
Kenrick, V. G." By the Rev. J. F. Russell, B.C.L. Is.
SAVING FAITH VIEWED IN REFERENCE TO THE
VIEWS OF THE REV. R. AITKEN. 3d.
SCOTT. — ^Apostolical Succession and Canon LV. By the
Rev. W. R. Scott, B.A., Perpetual Curate of S. Mary
Magdalene, Harlow. Is. 6d.
SCOTTISH COMMUNION OFFICE (A Letter on the). 4d.
STEERE,— An Histobical Sketch of English Bbotheb-
HOODS. By the Rev. Edward Steere, LL.D. 6d.
WARD. — ^Divine Sebvice. A Letter on the Alteration of
the Prayer Book. Bv the Rev. W. P. Ward, M.A.,
Rector of Compton Valence. Is.
WATSON. — ^The People, Education, and the Chubch.
A Letter to the Lord Bishop of Exeter. By the Rev. A.
Watson, M.A. Is.
WATSON. — ^Apology fob the Plain Sense of the Pbayeb
Book on Holy Baptism. 2s.
WESLEY.— The Chbistian Sacbament and Sacbifice.
From the Works of the Rev. John Wesley, M.A., Vol.
XXIII. p. 141, Bristol edition. Edited by the Rev. W.
Gresley, M.A. Fcp. 8vo. 3d.
WOODS. — ^Pbemonition to the Pbiesthood touching
the use of the Holy Scbiptubes as an Elementaby
Book. By the late Rev. R, Woods. 6d.
WOODWARD.— Demoniacal Possession, its Natube and
Cessation. By the Rev. Thomas Woodward, M.A, ls.6d.
<^^
. \-
^
AUG 1 igfe
